Monday’s letters: Reject EU’s insular protectionism and build new trade links

LORD Wallace of Saltaire (Yorkshire Post, August 25) cites debate in the House of Lords in the early 1970s regarding sovereignty and the implications of membership of the Common Market.

Whether he is correct or not is a moot point; the issue is that the British public in 1975 believed they were voting for a Common Market and did so on the basis of the official material provided to them at the time reassuring them that there would be no loss of essential sovereignty.

He cites football clubs and companies under foreign ownership as limits to sovereignty, yet these examples do not in any way impinge upon our right to self-government. Whether football benefits from foreign ownership is an important question, but it is hardly a threat to our democracy like the European Union.

Leaving aside for a moment the huge cost of the European Union and the regulatory burden of more than 100,000 pages of EU regulations which stifle business , on what is the case for a referendum based?

1. It is a constitutional question of at least as much importance as the AV debate, on which we were offered a referendum in May.

2. Opinion polls consistently show that a majority of people want a referendum on EU membership, and, that in such a referendum a majority of people would vote to leave.

3. The 1975 referendum approved the UK’s membership of a Common Market and claimed that there would be no loss of sovereignty – stating specifically that: “The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal … if he considers it to be against British interest”.

4. The European Union encroaches on far wider areas of policy than the Common Market did, and we no longer have the protection of the veto in most areas. There is no democratic mandate for the EU’s influence on crime, immigration, employment, health or other policy areas.

No-one is suggesting economic isolationism; ironically a vote to leave the EU would actually be closest to the spirit of a “Yes” vote in 1975. Many countries outside the EU have access to the Single Market.

Of course we would still have to obey EU regulations when trading with other EU countries, but domestic trade and trade with non-EU countries would be free. The question is simple: do we want the EU’s insular protectionism or do we want to grow our economy and develop trade links with new, emerging markets?

From: David W Wright, Easingwold, North Yorkshire.

IT is painfully obvious that the europhiles have completely blinkered views on the EU, judging from William Wallace’s letter (Yorkshire Post, August 24), and they are at odds with the majority of the population who have seen through the charade of the EU superstate and how we are almost submerged under the totalitarian rule of Brussels.

David Cameron must give us a referendum on leaving the EU as quickly as possible before the UK sinks into oblivion alongside Greece, Ireland, Portugal etc as the euro explodes.

From: D Wood, Thorntree Lane, Goole.

HAVING read Denis MacShane’s article (Yorkshire Post, August 17), one has to wonder what planet this man is on?

The euro was a flawed concept from the start, it is now the cause of Europe’s financial problems and trying to save it is only going to make matters worse and the eventual losses bigger still.

At the end of the day only a very few people actually want the EU and if the political elite continue with their United States of Europe dream it will only end in tears. As Dr MacShane says: “Adieu to the EU.” The sooner the better for Europe in general, and Britain in particular.

PM turning on weakest in society

From: Philip Hutchinson, Meersbrook Park Road, Sheffield.

I LISTEN to the Prime Minister – and other Ministers and Secretaries of State – on their moral high horses, turning, once again on the weakest people in the society they have played a significant part in creating and reinforcing, and think that these really are not the people to be governing Britain.

It isn’t that they are good or bad; it’s simply that they show very clearly that they are far removed from the kind of society they are actively perpetuating, and which at the same time they claim is flawed. Well it is that.

They first picked an argument with the police, who, along with doctors, nurses, health and social workers are somehow expected to sort out the dirty work created by bad government.

The police, quite rightly, on this occasion (the looting and violence) put the politicians in their places; so, once again we witness the Prime Minister and his allies scapegoating the people who are already paying a high price in their lives for the greed and dishonesty of financial dealers. It is no use giving us a moral dressing down when you have demoralised us. When this is about how the economy affects our lives, your words are empty, nonsensical.

We are harried from pillar to post to work for low wages, doing unsatisfying work; we are put through so-called work and training programmes delivered by agencies which the Government pays.

We are expected to care about the environments we live in, and to care about ourselves and our children, at the same time as we get the message, relentlessly, that we count for little beyond helping others to profit at our expense.

The coalition’s policies are guaranteed to worsen the ills visited on us.

Thank you for your efforts as trade envoys. How could we be so stupid?

From: CJ Ball, Finkil Street, Hove Edge, Brighouse.

WE often read about ATM machines which malfunction and dispense more money than was keyed in for withdrawal, and how people take this extra money thinking nothing is wrong in doing so.

Indeed, in many cases they ring friends to come and join in the “largesse”. (I have always wanted to ask these same people what action they would take if the machine dispensed less money than was requested).

Can someone tell me where the moral dividing line falls between those who walk away with the extra money and the looting which took place during the recent riots?

Power behind the throne

From: Tom Howley, Marston Way, Wetherby.

SIR Bernard Ingham confesses to your readers that as Margaret Thatcher’s Press secretary he was licensed to leak (Yorkshire Post, August 25).

This is not Sir Bernard “coming clean” in his twilight years; long ago, he boasted to an International Bar Association dinner that he had never regarded the Official Secrets Act as a constraint and that as far as he was concerned he could break the law when he judged it to be necessary.

Let us remember why Sir Bernard leaked confidential information. Prompted by his idol Prime Minister Thatcher, he regularly told tales out of school about Cabinet colleagues who had upset the Iron Lady at confidential meetings of the country’s governing body.

Any Minister who contradicted her, or who opposed her ideas were callously shopped to Lobby correspondents on an unattributable basis by the all-powerful Ingham who gloried in their discomfort and embarrassment. Many regarded him as the power behind the Thatcher throne, his arrogance and rudeness indicates that he thought so too.

Museum that is a treasure

From: Caroline Feeman, South Orleans Avenue, Bowling Green, Ohio, United States.

TWICE within the past year, I have visited the National Coal Mining museum near Wakefield. On the second occasion I brought a group of friends.

Despite some initial (but unfounded) concerns of claustrophobia everyone thoroughly enjoyed themselves. We were impressed to see the equipment the men had worked with over the years and to experience, for a minute, the total darkness little children endured when they worked with their families in the early 1800s.

Coal mining is a very important part of our Yorkshire heritage and the NCM, located at Caphouse Colliery, is a place of historical significance and interest. The museum provides a unique opportunity to witness first-hand how life was, no text book could ever do justice to describing this experience.

The guides are miners or retired miners and are both informative and entertaining. There is no entrance fee.

Thank you to everyone who worked to establish the museum and continue to upgrade it, also to the friendly and knowledgable staff who ensure that this is a great day out for individuals, families and school trips.

I encourage everyone to take advantage of this great Yorkshire treasure.

Deterrent needed to halt drivers using phones

From: Colin Cawthray, Greyholme, Lighthouse Road, Flamborough.

TOM Richmond asks has the law been relaxed on people using mobile phones while driving (Yorkshire Post, August 20)?

I worry when someone is using their mobile while driving behind me, that they are not fully concentrating on their driving.

The other day, I saw a man negotiating a roundabout one-handed while holding a conversation on his mobile.

How about members of the public who see this happening, take the number of the car and hand it into the police? Is it not time for our Home Secretary and hapless Lord Chancellor to put their heads together and come up with a suitable deterrent?

Here are two penalties I have thought of that would fit the crime.

A £1,000 fine and 6 months driving ban.

A £2,000 fine and 12 months driving ban.

The fines would cover the cost of the paperwork and time taken by the police to catch these criminals. Obviously this is a pipe dream. We know that this namby pamby Government and Opposition would object to such harsh sentences.