Deception and vilification by pro-EU camp

RATHER unconvincingly europhile Michael Swaby (Yorkshire Post, September 9) suggests that Lord Wallace of Saltaire has thoroughly debunked the 1970s view that “we thought it was only a common market”. Debunked? Not really.

At entry to the (then) EEC (now the EU) and during the 1975 referendum, we were led to believe that it was only a “Common Market” because both the Tories, led by Ted Heath, and Labour, led by Harold Wilson, relentlessly described it as such.

Government ministers and the media assured us there would be no loss of “essential national sovereignty”. Government leaflets echoed this theme, and omitted any mention of economic and monetary union, or the give-away word supranational.

The despicable sell-out of our fishing industry was even denied outright. As a result of the 30 year disclosure rule, we have now found out how we were cynically manipulated – or, bluntly, lied to.

Moreover back then, instead of a reasoned debate, the europhiles personally vilified the “No” campaigners. To my shame and regret I fell for this trick and at the 1975 referendum voted to stay in. Never again. Yet Mr Swaby is up to exactly the same trickery: denying what is written; and vilifying eurosceptics as “anti-European”. The truth is we are anti-EU: opposed to that undemocratic supranational political monster to which Quisling UK politicians continue to feed our money and power.

From: Don Burslam, Elm Road, Dewsbury Moor, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire.

LES Arnott (Yorkshire Post, August 29) and company are rather like Don Quixote tilting at windmills. Their unavailing protests have a similar touch of pathos.

Their dislike of all things European now verges on an obsession but it is quite clear their campaign is doomed to failure. The country’s inexorable loss of power and influence after two ruinous world wars finally led to its reluctant decision to join the European Union and what was said or not said by whom in the 70s is completely irrelevant.

I still think, contrary to what the antis think, that if we ever do get a referendum the result might very well go in favour of our staying in.

Given the links, relationships and the legal framework forged over nearly 40 years of membership, there is no realistic alternative. I have no doubt that all the major political parties understand this perfectly well but some will not admit it publicly for whatever reason.

From: George Senior, West Cowick. Goole.

AS the centenary of the Titanic disaster approaches your headline “Fears for egg farmers as EU sleepwalks into disaster” (Yorkshire Post, September 2) was timely.

The major contributor to Titanic’s disaster was the captain’s ignorance of positive warnings, combined with exchanging common sense for vanity. History is the greatest forecaster of the future. The last three captains of this country have flaunted their courtship with the EU in their quest for fame and fortune. They have bound and gagged this country to the EU without the provision of one single lifeboat.

Impact of development

From: Dr John Gibbins, Sowerby.

LOCAL residents of Sowerby and Thirsk opposed to the massive industrial and housing Castlevale development that will dwarf their area, have begun an audit of “negative impacts” of the proposal.

Correspondence has focused largely upon matters of due process. Recognising that no councillor has sought recently to explain or justify the benefits of the scheme to the public, I wish now to summarise the negative impacts of the Sowerby Gateway proposal for existing residents under three headings. Firstly, values and identity – Sowerby is a quiet residential community close to a vibrant market town of Thirsk. It provides residents, mostly families and the retired, with visual beauty, a close and active community, art and cultural resources – a rare sanctuary from the busy urban experience in many towns.

Residents value and cherish their existing community. The planned development would change this identity radically to one more industrial, noisy, congested, less homogeneous and centred.

Secondly, environmental impacts – In visual terms the picturesque rural approach from the A19 would be transformed into an industrial park and urban sprawl.

Finally economic impacts – the developers, using inadequate evidence and invalid argument, trumpet the economic stimulation the project would give to the area arguing that an increase in population necessarily means increased prosperity, a phenomena not witnessed in many areas, for example on what are called “sink estates”.

While some new residents may bring assets to the area, others may bring burdens, and while private businesses may gain from the former, the burdens will be born by local council tax payers and charities.

Lending is not irrespo nsible

From: Coun Paul Andrews, Malton Ward, Ryedale District Council, Great Habton, York

I AM glad that somebody has at last responded to my argument that banks should be made to lend more to businesses, and lend disproportionately in the North.

It is a pity that Bob Watson assumes that to do this would necessarily lead to irresponsible lending (Yorlshire Post, September 2). In previous letters, I have made it clear that such lending should be managed in a responsible way.

As I understand, the irresponsible lending which led to the crash was mainly excessive lending on residential house purchases, and that was what the “sub-prime” issue was all about. My argument has nothing to do with lending on houses – my argument is about lending to businesses in a responsible way.

The point is that now the banks are under government control, their lending policies should be aligned with the national interest.

Let me give an example:

If one of the big superstore chains seeks a loan to build a new store somewhere, they would probably be regarded as a safe risk and would get a huge loan without difficulty – in spite of the fact that because superstores operate on economies of scale and use central purchasing, they destroy more jobs than they create and reduce farm incomes to a level which can make agriculture an unattractive occupation.

On the other hand, as I understand, small and medium-sized businesses have huge difficulties in obtaining modest loans – particularly in the North, where most of the unemployment is. Is this really in the national interest?