Dispel myths with an EU referendum

WHILE disagreeing with them on almost everything else, I support the call by Jonathan Arnott and David Wright for a referendum to be held on the question of Britain’s continued membership of the EU (Yorkshire Post, August 29).

The matter has festered for 36 years, and a serious debate to clear the air would be entirely healthy. The anti-European tactic is to endlessly repeat a handful of false assertions in the hope that, over time, they will become accepted wisdom.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire has thoroughly debunked the “we thought it was only a common market”. If anything, the “we were promised a referendum” assertion is even weaker. Surely, this sort of guff would never survive the intense scrutiny of a referendum campaign.

History shows that events on the Continent are always of critical importance to this country with 20th century examples including:-

The commencement of World War One in 1914, sparked by an assassination in Sarajevo.

The failure of the Credit Anstalt in May 1931, triggering a series of other banking collapses and Britain’s abandonment of the Gold Standard a few months later.

Britain’s declaration of war on September 3, 1939, a direct consequence of Hitler’s policy of military expansion.

The fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989. Although a nervous Margaret Thatcher initially opposed German reunification, in the event it proved to be no threat to this country. In fact, we now know that a prosperous Germany is beneficial.

My argument is that what happens “over there” is so critically important to us that participation is a necessary act of self-interest, rather than the sacrifice portrayed by the anti-European camp.

Back in the 1950s, Britain declined the offer to become one of the founder members of the EEC. The fishing policy was created in our absence, and look what became of the fishing industry in Grimsby and Hull.

Sinister side to euro crisis

From: Nick Martinek, Briarlyn Road, Huddersfield.

AS the eurozone lurches from crisis to crisis, EU politicians take advantage to increase their power, while ordinary people suffer.

The UK wisely stayed out of the euro, yet taxpayers here are still being forced to prop it up, via extra IMF contributions.

Normally the IMF is used to help nations in misfortune, rather than squandered to keep alive a currency union wilfully set up against sound advice from the UK and elsewhere.

We have managed, so far, not to get sucked in to the direct euro bail-out fund (the EFSF), which desperately needs more money. Now along comes German Chancellor Merkel and French President Sarkozy earlier in August to propose a financial transaction (or “Tobin”) tax to fund the EFSF. But the majority of financial transactions in the EU originate in London, rather than Frankfurt or Paris. At one stroke the EU would thus make UK taxpayers bail out the euro, defuse hostility from German and French taxpayers, and increase the EU’s centralised powers.

The big question will be whether David Cameron will withstand the pressure from the rest of the EU to comply. The omens are not good. During his short Premiership, Mr Cameron has failed to keep his notorious “cast iron guarantee” for a referendum, and has already allowed power and sovereignty to slip away from the UK to the EU, contrary to his promises. However, the mood has changed and we no longer trust bland reassurances of politicians. Failure to keep us out of the euro bail-out will be treated as a betrayal of the UK by the Conservatives and will not be forgiven.

Saddam made war inevitable

From: John Fraser, Vale Court, Bond End, Knaresborough.

I REFER to the article (Yorkshire Post, August 1) regarding the Iraq inquiry and Tony Blair’s alleged “tapestry of deceit”, also describing the Iraq war as “the worst foreign policy disaster in modern history”.

Having memories of at least some of the horrific events that took place at Saddam Hussein’s instigation during the period when he was in control, my sympathies go out to Blair in being presented with the task of deciding whether to join with Bush in the invasion.

The possible existence of WMDs appears to have weighed heavily in arriving at the final decision to invade.

Even disregarding WMDs, his removal seemed totally justified and the invasion seemingly unavoidable.

History lesson on US control

From: Robert Cartlidge, Storth Lane, Wales, Sheffield.

IT is very strange that, back in Mexico 1910-20, America did the opposite to the familiar role it is now doing in Libya.

President Diaz ruled for 40 years in Mexico but wouldn’t relinquish power. The revolution lasted 10 years, America backed and supported Mexico against the rebels.

It is now using the rebel factor to achieve its own ends. It is engaged in achieving control in the oil-rich Middle East.

Unemployment was the main reason why they revolted in Libya.

Diaz was as much a tyrant as Gaddafi and the Tsar; democracy did not exist. It’s a way of influencing the people of Libya to act by Western-style democracy. There is more in it than meets the eye.