Advertiser letters: Brexit and Peabody’s philanthropy questioned
PUBLISHED: 08:00 09 December 2018
PA Wire/PA Images
Letters, contributions and comments sent in to the Advertiser this week.
EU agreement a ‘concern’
Mark Taylor, campaign manager, New Alliance, writes:
There is much concern over the proposed EU Withdrawal Agreement. The government claim it’s the best or only one on offer, but in reality, they haven’t tried hard enough.
It does not take back control of our borders, our laws or our money. It creates divisive borders within the UK and takes power away from elected government. It provides a blank cheque for the EU to pass laws over us for years to come with no guaranteed means of escape.
Far from ensuring a level playing field, it lets the EU pick the rule book and the referee. It provides a means of ensuring our industries are not competitive and can be saddled with new business taxes and decreased allowances.
Any issues are to be decided by the EU’s courts even years after the agreement ends. They can fine us what they like with no right of appeal.
The UK will also be liable for EU spending commitments made after the agreement ends, on top of the £35 billion payable up front.
Readers should urge their MP to get the government to renegotiate a balanced deal that holds the EU to its international obligations.
EU leaders are desperate to avoid ‘No Deal’, so should play ball.
Nik Wood, Gore Road, Hackney, writes:
When the Crown Estate privatised the homes that surround the Western end of Victoria Park it required the buyer to let 90 per cent of them to key workers.
That buyer, the charity Peabody, has since sold five homes and a development site. It is now proposing to sell a flat on leasehold terms in Old Ford Road and a terraced house on freehold terms in Robinson Road plus another in Hackney.
Our residents’ association will be studying this and pursuing again our concerns that Peabody is moving away from providing philanthropic rented homes to key workers to being a conventional property developer.
We will be questioning their claim that these homes have suddenly become unsuitable for rent while other identical ones continue to be let.
Their claim that they need the income from these sales to fund other building is contradicted by the high proportion of sales income in their current programme of developments.
These issues will be taken up by our association.