YEP Letters February 1

Sir David Attenborough
Sir David Attenborough
Have your say

Check out today’s YEP letters

Global history of climate changes

Roger Brown, Sandal

FURTHER to the recent comments by Sir David Attenborough, there can be no doubt that human activities are affecting the world’s climate. However, this now seems to be accepted as the sole reason for climate change.

Over our planet’s history, the British Isles have been subject to enormous changes from being covered by water to having extensive forestry coverage. Even during human history, there have been dramatic climatic changes when parts of the British Isles were covered by ice. When this ice melted, the British Isles were formed. Is it not possible that at least some of the present climatic changes are part of natural evolution over which humanity has absolutely no control?

Debate another waste of time and money

D Angood, by email

On Tuesday February 26 a number of people will attend the Great Northern Powerhouse debate to hear several speakers talk about what they feel should happen to create the GNP.

Looking at the list of speakers, there are a few that have a large question mark as to their suitability to address the future when their present actions have caused much detriment and precious little positivity for the public.

They may speak eloquently about what needs to and should happen but we in the north have listened to words and broken promises with no actions to follow. Are we to be regaled again by similar rhetoric?

Sorry, the man in the street will not be regaled because he will be unable to afford the price of a ticket for this juncket. No doubt council representatives will have their tickets paid for (taxpayers’ money) and firms will no doubt claim theirs on expenses.

None of the speakers will have a down to earth knowledge of the plight of many people in the area and what is needed to address that.

They will no doubt speak of the north/south divide, the need for investment, they will paint pretty pictures of how it should all look in their opinion.

The fact is that it wii be all talk because not one of them is in a position to promise anything. Just another waste of time and money.

No deal should stay on table

Trevor Spedding, Castleford

Local MPs take note. In 2016 Parliament voted to give the people of this country the say on leaving or remaining in the EU and pledged to uphold the result. The majority were in favour of leaving.

Subsequently every Conservative and Labour MP stood at the last election on a manifesto promise to honour the referendum result. The voters who returned you to Parliament are entitled to expect you to respect their wishes.

It’s abundantly clear that there is no appetite in Brussels to agree a deal to leave. Indeed their aim has been quoted to offer such a bad deal that the UK will remain.

In any negotiation there is always the possibility of no deal being reached. No Deal may not be ideal but must remain on the negotiating table. To remove No Deal from the table now would only serve to weaken Britain’s hand and is a further duplicitous attempt to deny the people’s wishes. Be assured that broken promises will come home to roost.

Privilege still trumps everything

Richard Saberton, by email

Should a 97-year-old still be driving? Should a 97-year-old still be driving two days after a serious accident?

Should a 97 year-old be allowed to flout the seat belt law? Well if the 97 year-old is Joe Bloggs from down the road then the answer is no!

He would have been visited by the local bobby, who is probably younger than his grandson, talked to like a naughty schoolboy and strongly advised not to drive again.

But if the 97-year-old is the Duke of Edinburgh then the sequence of events is slightly different. The local bobby won’t be involved, in fact the Duke probably doesn’t speak to anyone below Superintendent level.

Advice is very unlikely to be offered and both parties will know that no matter what is said the Duke will, at the end of the day, continue to do what he likes.

It is sad that, after the social upheaval of the two World Wars and the egalitarian revolution of the 60s and 70s, rank and privilege still trump everything.

Question of sovereignty

Philip Bartey, Bradford

WHATEVER the outcome of Parliamentary deliberation over Brexit, I believe we should think long and hard over the prospect of remaining in the EU.

According to recently released archive papers, we find that Winston Churchill was in favour of a federated Europe but he suggested the federation should be between Germany and France.

He was quite clear in stating that Britain should form no part of it.

Indeed, he felt that Britain should be forming a stronger trading alliance with key commonwealth countries and the USA.

I am puzzled why many Remainers appear to be fixated on trading arrangements with the EU. When are we going to see a strategy for global growth?

The World Bank recently announced that 85 per cent of world trade takes place outside the EU. Any businessman will tell you that the 80/20 rule makes absolute sense.

Our primary target for trade deals should be outside the EU where the bulk of opportunity exists.

Our strength lies both in the ability and capacity of UK plc and in our strong links with the commonwealth and the US.

It has become clear that our MPs are in a conflict of interest. Some of them view the EU as a gold-plated job for life. It has become a home for failed politicians.

No wonder politicians are fighting each other to find ways of securing future jobs.

It all boils down in the end to the question of sovereignty. Who owns the UK?

Let us know what you think

THE Yorkshire Evening Post wants you to share your views with other readers.

Whether you’re commenting on a local topic, 
a national story or international affairs, please join the debate.

Email or write to The Editor, Readers’ Letters, Yorkshire Evening Post, No 1 Leeds, 26 Whitehall Road, Leeds LS12 1BE.

Please keep letters under 300 words.