Dear Mr Parish
I would like to raise some issues which I intend to circulate to other campaigners. Namely:
1. The questioning of the panelists was clearly skewed towards the MPs own leaning either for or against Brexit. This is clearly unprofessional. ‘We the people’ expect more from our elected representatives.
2. It became evident that one of the panellists was very pro-EU so I undertook to check out his credentials via LinkedIn. This particular individual had been working right up until September 2016 for a Labour Remain MP (after the Referendum vote). The public voted you into office so I would like to know details of the credentials that this individual has in order to provide unbiased advice to the government? The Fishing Industry is an open and shut case. WE WANT OUR FISHING WATERS BACK.
What scrutiny is really being applied by these scrutiny committees when they appear to be being bamboozled by ‘Remain’ input? This type of ‘consultation/factfinding’ was also recently mirrored in one of the Brexit / Defence committees where the all female panel had comprised of three representatives from the world of academia.
3. The questioning of the panel seemed to consist entirely of the logistics of us importing fish from outside Rotterdam. I am happy to stand corrected but I thought that the debate seemed fairly futile since if we are to regain our fishing waters back, then much of what was being discussed was pointless. Are we to assume that we are not planning to reclaim any of our waters?
Finally, it seems to me that we are not planning to leave the EU (maybe in name but not in deed) . Is this document
publications/the-best-of-both- worlds-the-united-kingdoms-spe cial-status-in-a-reformed-euro pean-union
the blueprint for our future?