Sir,

To those members of the electorate, if there are any, who still look to the Conservative Party for salvation from the European Union, it must be clear by now that the Party is hopelessly mired over the issue. Only yesterday, William Hague condemned as "fanatics", advocates of withdrawal from the European Union.

In today's issue of The Daily Telegraph, an article by Alan Judd more or less recommends Conservatives in favour of withdrawal to vote for the United Kingdom Independence Party in the European elections next 10th June. This is the only course open left to Euro-sceptics.

The reasons are:

Mr Hague needs to be persuaded that his supporters and would-be supporters want the Party to regain its historic role as defenders off the nation.

Mr Blair needs to be persuaded that he will lose if he holds a referendum on the single currency.

Under the proportional representation system adopted for this election, the return of UKIP members is credible. A recent MORI poll showed that 25 per cent of the electorate said it would vote for a party advocating withdrawal from the European Union.

The election of UKIP members will raise the profile of the Euro-sceptic movement as a whole and compel the broadcast media to treat the Euro-sceptic case with seriousness and not the flippancy that it has hitherto displayed. The outcome would be "a proper debate" on the single currency, and the whole European Union miasma, something which the Euro-federalists have always claimed to want that have so far managed to avoid.

I am sure it is superfluous to point out that, for all sorts of reasons, the European elections are meaningless in party political terms, and therefore your vote should be cast worried will do the greatest damage to the Euro-federalist cause.  It is for this reason that I am asking you and your readers to cast your vote us for the UKIP in the European elections next 10th June and persuade as many others as possible to do likewise.

Yours sincerely,

Fabian Olins,
London NW4

In his "Thoughts on the Serbian War" [Free Life No.29, April 1999], Sean Gabb asserts that the aims of this war are undefined. Wrong! NATO has clearly stated that the bombing will continue until Yugoslavia accepts the Rambouillet Accord - that is, the evacuation of Kossovo by Yugoslav forces, followed by autonomy (not independence) for the province enforced by an occupying force of NATO troops; then a referendum on independence three years later. NATO leaders declare that it is not their aim to overthrow the Yugoslav Government nor invade the country, but that war criminals will be brought to justice (a self contradiction!). Mr Blair, incidentally, denies ever having been a member of CND, unlike Robin Cook.

Helen Szamuely also misrepresents the situation. The ideal of Greater Serbia has always been supported by public opinion, and not just the academics. That sentiment was a cause of the First World War. It also helped Mr Milosevic (a Communist turned nationalist)to  become democratically elected President, first of the Republic of Serbia and then of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

The basic tragedy is that NATO caused the ethnic cleansing of Kossovo by announcing in March this year that he would intervene and Bahrain (effective) bombing, but would not use ground forces. That gave Mr Milosevic the chance to expel all the Moslems from Kossovo, protected from intervention by the Islamic powers.

Unless NATO leaders have the courage to invade Kossovo this summer, the refugees will disperse in the autumn and Mr Milosevic will emerge victorious. In any event, he will not be overthrown, and will not be brought to trial as a war criminal.

Yours despondently,

Cllr Edward Goodman LLB
Surrey

I write regarding Edward Hume's comments on the Lead Shot Regulations [Free Life No.30, May 1999].  Unfortunately, this is not a limited phenomenon.

In the mid 80s, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Adam Smith Institute together published a compendium of inspectors' powers of entry, finding over 200 separate pieces of legislation under which such powers were created for various categories of regulatory officials.

When I was at the Institute of Directors some while after, I wrote a response by the Institute to a set of draft regulations on the energy efficiency of hot water boilers. In response to an EU directive, hot water boilers had to be labelled with a CE mark and efficiency code. The relevant inspectors could enter property, seize boilers, any material potentially relating to boilers (including business papers etc) and a host of other things, all without warrants.

What seems to happen is that "off the shelf" language covering enforcement powers is added to the regulation without much thought as to what, if any, specific enforcement powers are needed. All the pressures from the officials, pressure groups etc add to this phenomenon, and the whole thing never gets scrutinised by anyone.

This whole issue adds greatly to my irritation with the "constitutional reform" theme - current scrutiny by the Commons of legislation, and of secondary legislation in particular, is woefully inadequate, as are the mechanisms for removing poor legislation once on the statute book. No-one seems to worry about this.

Yours sincerely,
Iain Smedley
bmgs@pollyanna.demon.co.uk

I thoroughly enjoyed your attack on Peter Lilley [Free Life No.30, May 1999].  As an observer, through the newspapers, of British politics, it is disturbing that the Conservatives seem intent on rolling back the advances of Thatcherism that helped save the British economy.

Your views struck a chord with me, as I am probably what Mr Lilley would call an "anarcho-capitalist". I am a doctor in New Zealand, and have seen what sort of substandard service a public health system offers. I am also the co-deputy leader of the New Zealand Libertarian Party (Libertarianz) and am standing for parliament on a staunchly anti-taxation, anti-statist platform later this year. My biggest influence over the years has been the writings of Murray Rothbard.

Keep up the great work. Long live anarcho-capitalism!

Yours sincerely,
Richard McGrath
mongrel@winz.co.nz

I have just read your article "How Not to Stop the London Bombings"  [Free Life No.30, May 1999].  What an excellent essay! While there are still people around in England with your good sense and eloquence, I still believe we have some hope. I just hope that there will be enough to stem this tide of ignorance and emotional indulgence before we are hounded underground.

All the best,
Paul Spring
pjspring@snip.net

I liked your "How Not to Stop the London Bombings" immensely [Free Life No.30, May 1999]. However, I would issue one word of caution:  if it is accepted that certain speech or writings may not be freely available, as you suggest, but only by private request, a thin end of a very large wedge is driven under the concept of free expression. Although under the conditions you propose, anything could be published, the conditions  would breach the principle that anything may be said at any time. The principle that some things should only be available privately  could easily be perverted, and most certainly would be perverted,  and used to  prevent access to the mass media and mass distribution of anything deemed not acceptable by those with power.

Freedom of expression is absolute: the choice is between it and a range of permitted opinion.  My own feeling is that no restriction should be placed on free expression, but that incitement to violence should be punished when the circumstances are so explicit that it constitutes a conspiracy to commit a violent act. However, prosecution should only occur where violence has occurred and should be proportional to the damage and injury incurred. For example, if the assault on a person results in injuries occasioning grievous bodily harm, make the charge a conspiracy to commit GBH; if the injuries are those of common assault, charge the inciter with that. If criminal damage occurs, charge the inciter with conspiring to commit criminal damage; if arson, with conspiracy to commit arson.

The idea that a man should be prosecuted for simply inciting violence is a dangerous one, because it is subjective in its application. As judges in America have found on occasions, even "fighting talk", is no excuse, for violence because the violence only arises from the inability of others to control themselves.

By the way, I would be careful about accepting the response of Gerry Gable of Searchlight as indicative of the reality or otherwise of the White Wolves. I heard Mr Gable on Radio 5 a couple of months ago. Listeners were invited to phone in with questions. Someone raised the matter of Mr Gable's appearance in a court case last year in which he had to admit to involvement with members of the Far Right. Strangely, he became incredibly flustered by the question. I say strangely, because his normal riposte to questions about his involvement with the Far Right is that he is working undercover in the "antiracist" cause. There is more to this fellow's involvement with the Far Right than meets the eye.

I still lean towards the view that the White Wolves is a piece of dirty propaganda put out by either the Security Forces or "antiracists". It is just too neat, too convenient.

Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk