In the EU election campaign pro-Remain parties emphasised the benefits to the country from unlimited inward migration. One candidate from this region even sports a T-shirt message extolling immigration for his leaflet photograph.
Given this belief that such migration aligns so well with the national interest, it seems puzzling that the EU should feel it necessary to mandate an open-door policy as a core principle rather than leaving it to the judgement and self-interest of each state to achieve this.
One might indeed have imagined that the principle of subsidiarity would require it to delegate this decision. The British government has on occasion gone beyond the dictates of the EU in accepting migrants.
This matters because the EU’s insistence upon a seemingly superfluous rule was so clearly a deciding factor in the 2016 referendum. Their belatedly scrapping the rule is the only circumstance in which that referendum result could now legitimately be put aside. Why are Remainers not urging them to do this? Why is the EU prepared to drive out one of its largest financial contributors for the sake of a rule which, on their own reasoning, can make no difference?
From: Peter Horton, Sandy Lane, Ripon.
Lord William Wallace writes (The Yorkshire Post, May 17) about the perceived advantages of staying in the EU, which is only to be expected from a member of his party which is neither liberal nor democratic in its determination to ignore the instructions of the British people.
I take particular issue with his comments on RAF Menwith Hill and other camps where our American allies are based and the outrageous suggestion that this somehow demonstrates that we are not a sovereign nation.
The US, as our most powerful military ally, is here by our invitation to help our common defence objectives. Contrast this with the EU, led by unelected officials, and forming laws that Britain has to obey whether to our benefit or not.
Lord Wallace describes the EU as “our natural allies” – allies who invest far less in their armed forces than we do and much less than our aforementioned US allies. There is nothing to be gained by clinging to Brussels. Our future needs to be in our own hands as an independent nation once again, free to make our own way in the world as we have always done.
From: Arthur Quarmby, Mill Moor Road, Meltham.
It SEEMS to me time to postpone Brexit.
In messing about with it for three years the Conservatives have destroyed themselves, and so the next government is going to be very left-wing; the economy will be badly damaged and it will all be blamed on Brexit.
Better stay in for the moment and let the EU be blamed. Then when things are back to normal, apply again.
Qualities and freedoms
From: Thomas W Jefferson, Howden, Goole.
Why does James Bovington find it so difficult to understand that 85 per cent of the electorate voted in the 2017 general election for parties pledging to end freedom of movement, in the full knowledge that it would disadvantage a small minority? (The Yorkshire Post, May 17)
Mr Bovington’s proposals for another referendum, with three options, would split the vote, meaning that the “winner” could have as little as 34 per cent, thereby lacking democratic legitimacy. Using second preferences would probably see Remain lose, because if one of the two Leave options was bottom of the poll their second preferences would veer towards the other Leave vote. Another binary choice will not be acceptable because supporters of the option excluded from the vote will cry “foul”!
I enjoyed Tony Rossiter’s hatchet job on Boris Johnson (The Yorkshire Post, May 18), because he revealed the reason why Boris probably is electable.
In listing all the worthy qualities a Prime Minister should have, he could have been describing Theresa May, and look where that got us.
From: Gordon Lawrence, Stumperlowe View, Sheffield.
James Bovington in his letter (The Yorkshire Post, May 17) discusses two controversial issues. Firstly, that no Europhobe has as yet attempted to give him an intellectually coherent answer to the deprivation suffered by British youths, when Brexit kicks in, to end their facility of being able to study in and meander around Europe.
I was unaware before reading his letter that the implementation of Brexit will ban students and holiday makers from visiting these European countries.
It almost seems, on the persuasions of the writer, that we’re about to declare war.
He likes to scorn Europhobes, as he calls us, but he seems to be slow in understanding that we’re only trying to escape from the undemocratic clutches of the one-track hierarchy in Brussels.
Furthermore, I can envisage countless other demeaning human situations that would more aptly outweigh the ignominy of students being deprived of frictionless motion through Europe.
Losing one’s independence is one.
Even if visas are demanded after Brexit this should not consume much student time. They will still, I’m sure, have sufficient hours to swot or go down to the pub.
I see plenty of young US citizens undeterred in Europe, for instance.