I’M old enough to have voted in the 1975 referendum as to whether we stayed in the ‘Common Market’, two years after our elitist politicians decided we should join.

I was duped into voting ‘yes’ by former Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath — stupidly I believed him when he said that there would be ‘no loss of sovereignty’.

I am now 41 years older and I do not intend to be duped again by David Cameron, the current Tory PM.  

I suggest you read his Bloomberg speech of 2013, when he said that he was going to bring back all sorts of powers from Brussels.  In the event, having hawked his way round the EU capitals, he has come back with a weak-as-dishwater agreement; ‘thin gruel’ according to one of his backbenchers. Nothing appreciable has been returned to Westminster, but unsurprisingly it is enough to satisfy Dave, a Europhile from day one. 

What about our local MP, Mel Stride?  Four years ago, he said that our relationship with Europe had gone too far and a political union taking away powers from our own Parliament was something that needed to be urgently addressed (as written to Sir George Earle). Now he is voting to remain in the EU.

I do not doubt that many of you who voted for Mr Stride will feel very let down indeed by this news.

The ‘trading bloc’ which we all thought we had joined in 1973 has morphed into an embryonic federal state called the European Union.  Many of its members’ economies are comatose, with youth unemployment at astronomic levels, and now it is crystal clear that neither we (nor the EU) have any real control of our borders.  The EU has had its day.  It is patently a failure, and I would ask you all to vote ‘leave’ on June 23, so that we can take back control of our own destiny.

Co-operation on normal matters like security, trade, travel, environment, at inter-governmental level is fine, a United States of Europe is a recipe for disaster.

Wise words from Sir Winston Churchill about Europe.

‘We are with Europe but not of it.

 ‘We are linked but not compromised.

  ‘We are interested and associated but not absorbed.

 ‘If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea.’

Bob Rush

Okehampton

MR Mathew (EU letter May 12) is delusional. Almost every point he makes is either a wish or fantasy or downright wrong ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.

The emotive language of ‘Iron Curtain’ is typical — actually all the ex-Eastern European countries chose to join the European Union.

‘The unelected commissioners’ are representatives of each country including Britain who ensure we have an input into decisions. ‘Trading on our own terms’ — again a fantasy. We already trade with the rest of the world. The Commonwealth has moved on. Try negotiating with Australia and New Zealand —  they are busy developing free trade (EU style) with their Asian neighbours.

Harmonisation ensures we have basic safety and other standards on all products. Any trading we do with Europe post June would still have to meet these — the Norwegians and the Swiss have to follow almost all European rules but have no say in them!

Every organisation of any standing in Britain from medical to economic and environmental urges the UK to stay. Mr. Mathew’s ‘rewards’ are a result of his wish fulfilment in attempting to justify his emotive and irrational views. They don’t exist! He is a victim, as are many, of 30 years of distortions and untruths by large sections of our ‘free press’. Vote to stay in!

Ian Gasper

Tavistock

                  

YOUR correspondent (Mr Mathew) seems to think that leaving the EU will free us from the shackles of red tape. He is wrong.

The EU regulations are there for a good reason, and chiefly deal with two issues. The first is to ensure that products and services sold in the EU are safe for consumers. Personally I’m very glad to know that cowboys are not allowed to sell dangerously designed goods in our shops, and I doubt if Mr Mathew wants the wheels to fall off his car because of inadequate design or his new TV to burst into flames and burn his house to the ground because the wiring circuits are unsafe.

The second reason for the regulations is to secure the safety of employees and to ensure they are not asked to work dangerously long hours or use dangerous working methods. Again, I doubt if Mr Mathew wants the doctor treating him in A and E to be coming to the end of a double shift or the HGV driver coming towards him at the wheel of a 40 ton HGV to have been driving for 12 hours continuously.

Of course we could re-invent all the regulations that the EU provides, and call them our own. But there is no point. If we wanted to trade with any EU country at all, we would have to comply with all EU regulations anyway, pay into the EU budget anyway and accept EU migration anyway, exactly as Norway does. The difference is that at the moment we can influence the EU legislation, and in some cases veto it.

Mr Mathew needs to be careful what he asks for. If he got it, he would end up exactly where he is now, but with no way of influencing the decisions taken which got him there. If, on the other hand, he wants this country deliberately to cut itself off from the market which takes nearly half its exports, then he needs to say so clearly and explain why he thinks this would be a good idea. It sounds like economic suicide.

Peter Bonsey

Calstock

A DISTINGUISHED journalist has undertaken an archaeological analysis of the voting results the last time we Brits had a European Referendum. Going deep into the layers of opinions at that time, as reflected in the records of polling bodies and newspaper archives, he has come up with a stunning conclusion from his excavation of records.

That referendum was lost to the fraternity who argues ‘no thanks’ because Joe Public saw their spokespeople as having ‘mad, staring eyes’.

Now I’ve not done the same level of analysis but I recall with clarity the time period when I served on a steering committee for the winning vote. I canvassed, delivered and spoke to a great many people at the time. Most were simply not convinced by the negative values promulgated by the people who essentially wanted GB, at a time of strong memories of WWII and the Cold War, to have nothing to do with those over the channel.

I have to say that their stance embraced a style of fanaticism with a fervency, then as I conclude today also, that could prompt the ‘mad, staring eyes’ tag. Today’s voices do in fact come from mainly older men who firmly believe that Britain can stand alone, fight its own corner, and kick foreigners out of our country.

The EU is far from perfect. There is not however a desire to destroy but to build. I was delighted the other day to read, for example, that the European Investment Bank (EIB) has created a £1-billion fund to help 70 social housing providers continue their investment programme. The EIB is a formal part of the EU. Jump out of the EU means we lose membership of the EIB. It is but one part of a complex web of to which we all contribute and benefit.

Tom Jones

Plymouth