May 28: In search of facts amid the bias of the emotive EU debate

Have your say

From: Richard Barrand, Shepley. West Yorkshire.

From: Richard Barrand, Shepley. West Yorkshire.

I READ the article by Godfrey Bloom, irrespective of his views, with interest (The Yorkshire Post, May 23). Although I am 86 and pride myself on being reasonably well educated and informed, I have to confess that I know very little about how the EU works, even though I have been politically aware of it since we joined.

I was surprised, for example, to note his comment that the Parliament was not really an “initiator” of legislation (my interpretation of his words).

It has prompted me to do some research and through a very comprehensive piece on Wikipedia I am gradually learning a lot more about its formation, composition, budget and how it operates. I learn, for example, that the Parliament of 751 elected members is only one half of the legislation approval system dealing with legislation that is initiated by the unelected European Commission, the other half being the Council of the EU made up of one (variable) Government Minister from each member state. I still have a lot more to learn.

The more I read the more convinced I am that the average member of the British public will be no better informed than I am and cannot possibly make a sensible vote when the time comes for the referendum.

We need to be much more aware of what the facts really are as opposed to the biased information put out by the opposing parties of the “In” and the “Out” brigades.

While anyone can do as I am doing, I suggest that there is a strong case to be made for newspapers such as your own to provide that information through regular articles, in simple words, without bias.

From: Bob Watson, Baildon.

HUDDERSFIELD Labour MP Barry Sheerman should obviously start some sort of new career as a mind-reader. He stated (The Yorkshire Post, May 25) that “millions of people across the country voted Tory, not because they truly believed in the regressive values of Conservatism, but because they felt that they had no real alternative”.

What a clever man to be able to read the minds of all those voters – unless it really was just wishful thinking. He showed his slanted views by calling the Conservative Party “regressive”, when many of us would consider that to be a far more appropriate description for his own tired party whose economic record, as well as that on immigration, shows that it deserves no further chances to govern.