The UK was taken into the Common/Single Market, European Economic Community (EEC), without a democratic choice being offered to the UK population. A couple of years later a referendum was held and the UK population chose democratically to remain in the Common Market.
Over time the EEC morphed into the European Union (EU), a political union. The UK population was offered no democratic choice in this change. Nor presumably were the populations of the other countries of the EEC.
The Brexit referendum restored a semblance of democracy to the UK population, for better or for worse depending on one’s viewpoint and interests. However, the only options on offer, Leave or Remain, made no differentiation between the economic union and the political union.
Did we choose to leave or remain in the economic union which we had previously democratically chosen to remain in, or to leave or remain in the political union which we had not chosen to join, or did we by default and lack of differentiation choose to leave or remain in both? The resultant confusion, dissatisfaction, demands for a referendum on the result of exit negotiations and clamour to retain the economic benefits of the Common Market/Customs Union while we reject the political element of the EU, is an indictment of the incompetence or deviousness of our politicians.
Arguably then, the UK is entitled to choose to leave the undemocratic European political union while remaining in the previously democratically chosen Economic Community/Common Market/Customs Union, or vice versa, if that in fact is what the UK population chose, one person’s Leave vote having the same intent as another person’s Remain vote.
It would require another pre-exit and pre-negotiation referendum to ascertain the true intent of the Leave and Remain votes cast in the Brexit referendum. The choices offered in a new referendum must differentiate between the economic union and the political union.
If the (marginal) majority Brexit vote is deemed to be democratic, final and indicative that the UK should leave the EU in its entirety, politically and economically, any present or future attempt to retain or regain the benefits of Common Market membership would be an undemocratic perversion of the democratically expressed wishes of the UK population as a whole. (But not of the populations of Scotland and Northern Ireland where the majorities voted to Remain).
What was the intent of the referendum and what were the intentions of the voters?
We need a clear definition of democracy and a more accountable non-factional, non-party form of government whose sole function is the furtherance and maintenance of the Common Good of the whole population.
Democracy and Capitalism seem incompatible in their present forms.
DENNIS GOLDEN
Strabane, Co Tyrone
Marie Curie highlights concerns over health cuts
With the consultation now ended on the proposed savings by the Health and Social Care Trusts I want to share the concerns we have raised that these proposals will have a devastating impact on people living with a terminal illness and their loved ones.
At Marie Curie we know the right care and support at the right time can make all the difference for people at the end of life. An inevitable outcome of the cuts would be that already stretched care staff are put under more pressure to deliver the same care without the same resources. Our trustee John Compton has described the potential of a ‘workforce merry-go-round’ that sees one service pulling staff away from the other. We agree and don’t think this is fair on staff or patients.
Carers, who already provide significant support in our health system, will also be put under increased pressure and it is unrealistic to expect people to be able to provide 24-hour support. The proposed reduction in domiciliary care will cause a crisis for families. Moreover, not every patient has a loved one who can care for them at home, so how will these most vulnerable of people be cared for?
We are all acutely aware of the prevalence of people waiting for beds and being delayed getting home from hospital because the right package of care isn’t in place. It is worrying that the proposed changes will likely cause more of this. With more people living longer and with multiple conditions often requiring complex care, it is a disaster that is only going to get worse.
I hope the trusts will take heed of the concerns raised and ensure care and support for those with terminal illness is protected before any decisions severely impact the most vulnerable patients. Otherwise, I fear we will be hearing more about how our health and social care system is failing those most
in need.
JOAN McEWAN
Head of Policy and Public Affairs, Northern Ireland Marie Curie
Belfast BT5
True date of Christmas passed without fanfare
The advertisements for Christmas-themed merchandise are already penetrating the media a good three months before the actual event. Obviously the emphasis is more on making a healthy profit from the season than actually remembering it as the birth of Christ.
A growing number of Bible scholars are concluding that Jesus Christ, or Yeshua to give Him His original Hebrew name, could not have been born in the ‘deep mid-winter’ or December 25 as it would have been too cold in the hills of Judea where Bethehem is situated to have shepherds out in the fields at night as the Gospel story recounts.
A September or October birth would seem more plausible, a milder time of year.
There are clues in the Bible which help to verify these claims, including the birth date of John the Baptist who was Yeshua’s cousin and who was born six months before Him. In I Chronicles 24:10 in the Old Testament (or Jewish ‘Tanach’) John’s father’s priestly cycle of Abijah is listed as being on the eighth week of the Hebrew year and from this point we can calculate nine months which will arrive at Passover, an ‘appointed’ feast. Both the special births of John and Jesus were predicted in Scripture to be at the ‘appointed time’ which in Hebrew is the word ‘moed’ meaning an appointed feast or holy day. It would appear that John was born “at the appointed time” on the first day of Passover and circumcised, as a Jew, on the eighth day of the week-long feast, the eighth day also being a ‘moed’ or appointed feast day, an annual Sabbath or rest day. Exactly six months later Jesus would have been born in September/October time on the Feast of Tabernacles, or ‘Sukkot’ in Hebrew, on the first day of the festival, an ‘appointed time,’ and circumcised, as a Jew, on the eighth day, the last day of the festival.
There will be much glitter and overspending as the festive season approaches, but it is not the ‘appointed time’ when the Saviour of the world was born.
COLIN NEVIN
Bangor, Co Down
Ludicrous comparison
Conflicting points of view on whether the six north east counties of Ireland are as British as Finchley have been expressed following Arlene Foster and Michelle O’Neill’s disagreement over the subject. To scrutinise the claim it is useful to look at the etymologies of the place names. Finchley is derived from finch leah which is old English for finch clearing. Finchley is in London which has a name derived from the Brythonic terms for Fort of Lud.
Ulster is derived from Gaelic for land of the bearded people. Antrim is derived from the Gaelic for one tribe, one ridge or one dwelling depending on etymological interpretation. Down means fort from the Fort of Lethglas. Derry came from the Gaelic phrase for oak grove. Armagh was construed from Macha’s height and Macha was a goddess worshiped at Navan fort. Fermanagh translates as the men of the country of lakes. Tyrone means land of Eoghan as it is named after king Eoghan MacNeill.
Comparing the demography of central and east Ulster and Finchley is interesting. Finchley is 71 per cent British according to census data whereas 48.4 per cent of people in this territory are British. 28.4 per cent of people here are Irish whereas 1 per cent of people in Finchley are Irish. Suggesting that these two thirds of the province of Ulster are as British as Finchley is quite frankly ludicrous.
EAMONN MacGRIANNA
Belfast BT11
