From: Your Freedom and Ours & EUReferendum
Subject: European Union, expenses and Britain's relationship
Text: Arguing that we should not discuss anything but the expense of our membership of the European Union is old hat. This has been done for many years with a number of people saying exactly what you are saying: it is only the expense that matters.
Unfortunately, though the figures have been available for a long time and the corruption and expense well known and accepted by many people, this has resulted in no action. Nor has it taken the discussion any further.
We have reached a stage when we could move on, discuss other aspects like those despised political and constitutional ones and to start a discussion of what we might be able to do about this. Unfortunately, your contributions, useful though those figures are, reverse the process and take us back to the endless churning of the same points: it is expensive and it is corrupt.
Furthermore, it is hard to understand what you mean about being concerned about our relationship with the EU. We do not have a relationship with it, we are part of it. It legislates for us and the decision of how much money we hand over is not made here but in Brussels.
Changing that relationship can be done only by radical changes to the Consolidated Treaties, which will remain in power even if the
Treaties can be changed only by unanimous agreement at an IGC with a subsequent implementation in all the member states? Are you suggesting that we go down that path? If yes, what do you think we should offer the other states in order to get their agreement to our ideas? If not, what alternatives do you have?