Letters: Enough of this fact-free point-scoring on Europe

These letters appear in the 8th March 2016 edition of The Independent

European Parliament (EPA)

The departure of John Longworth as CEO of the British Chambers of Commerce has underlined the depressingly low quality of the EU referendum debate.

Inevitably, those who support his view that we should leave the EU regard his resignation as an attack on free speech, whereas, in reality he resigned because he went against the BCC’s decision to remain neutral.

We can be absolutely sure that Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and others would have called for Mr Longworth’s head if he had come out in favour of staying in, citing the very reasons they are currently choosing to ignore.

Unless we move the tenor of discussion on from petty-minded, fact-free point scoring, we run the risk of putting off the very people who need to vote in this referendum if we are to stay in the EU: the young and the politically unengaged.

Ian Richards

Birmingham

D M Loxley (letter, 7 March) refers ironically to three benefits of EU membership: VAT, food dating and the European Arrest Warrant (EAW).

VAT does have weaknesses but is generally considered to be fairer and easier to collect than its predecessor, purchase tax. More countries are moving from a sales tax to VAT.

“Use by” dates on perishable items are just information which you can act on or ignore. But they do give the consumer some redress against a retailer selling food that is no longer fit to eat.

It is not a requirement of the EU to take part in the EAW. The UK opted out in 2013 and in 2015 opted back in because there are so many advantages, including extradition times reduced from a year to 48 days.

Since 2009, 57 child sex suspects have been extradited from the UK, 86 rape suspects and 105 for murder. In the same time the UK has been able to extradite back to face justice 63 child sex suspects, 27 rape suspects and 44 murder suspects. Many of these would have escaped justice without the EAW. I am not aware of anyone being falsely extradited due to identity theft.

As with most arguments from the Brexit camp they either miss the point or only tell half of the facts.

Brian Dalton

Sheffield

Boris Johnson’s claims about lack of sovereignty of our Parliament are not legally correct

Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 provides that all future UK law shall be interpreted in the light of the law emanating from the relevant European Community (now European Union) Treaties. This gave direct effect to European law into UK law and included that all subsequent Acts of Parliament were subject to European law (with notable exceptions including criminal law and tax-raising powers).

This was, as stated by Boris Johnson, a voluntary ceding of sovereignty to Europe. Crucially however, the British Parliament retains fundamental sovereignty over the law of these islands for the simple reason that Parliament enacted s.2 of the European Communities Act and Parliament can, at any time, repeal this section, thereby removing the force of all EU law over us at a stroke.

Therefore, whatever the outcome of the forthcoming referendum, our Parliament is and remains sovereign.

George Hepburne Scott

Barrister,

Temple, London EC4

Refugee crisis baffles moral pygmies

Your editorial “Sealing the deal” (7 March) is right to refer to the current plan to stem the flow of migrants, block the progress of those already in Europe, and return many to Turkey as a “wheeze”. In the face of a historic movement of people, driven from their homes by war, poverty and hopelessness, our national leaders in the European Union have, with one or two exceptions, behaved like moral pygmies.

The response to the needs of desperate people has been a massive failure of compassion and basic efficiency in the immediate provision of basic physical requirements. It has fallen to the kindness of citizens of many countries to try and fill this gap, but they lack the resources to be effective.

No doubt the problem is complex, but there is no need for people to freeze in the open air or suffer a lack of food, shelter, water and sanitation while the powers that control their destinies wrangle about what they are unwilling to do.

British leaders are among the most heartless, refusing to consider reuniting refugees in the French camps with relatives already in Britain.

Sierra Hutton-Wilson

Evercreech, Somerset

The smokescreen of David Cameron’s statements about taking in vulnerable children from countries neighbouring Syria does nothing to hide the reality that the many children who have a legal right to enjoy sanctuary in the UK are being left in Calais. The inhumane bulldozing of the “Jungle camp” makes the plight of these children ever more desperate.

The Government should condemn the actions of the French authorities rather than colluding in the destruction of one of the few rays of hope people in this desperate situation have: hope and compassion brought by many British volunteers who have provided shelters and other facilities in the camp.

We wholeheartedly support the system of buddying set up by Juliet Stevenson, Jude Law and others and commend them for demonstrating the solidarity and compassion that our government has failed to offer.

We also call on the Government to meet the requirements placed on it by international law and EU policy, namely: to accept responsibility for those with family members or other ties in the UK; to establish joint registration centres within the Calais and Dunkirk camps, staffed by trained legal caseworkers; and to issue guidance to caseworkers on the proper implementation of the “Dublin procedure”.

Natalie Bennett

Leader, Green Party of England and Wales

Baroness Jenny Jones

Jean Lambert MEP

(Green, London)

Caroline Lucas MP

(Brighton Pavilion, Green)

Molly Scott Cato MEP

(Green, South-West England)

A long road to Bethlehem

The letter from 300 of psychology’s top brass (2 March), calling for their planned conference in Jerusalem to be moved elsewhere, made me think of a better venue, namely the beautiful, newly built convention centre seven miles away in Bethlehem.

If such a decision were made, can I suggest that those who can fly to Tel Aviv, get the shuttle to Damascus Gate, Jerusalem, on the Israeli-only road, then a bus to the check point to go through the Wall and into Bethlehem.

A further understanding of the Palestinian situation could be had by undertaking the return by the way that virtually all Palestinians have to: across the Jordan River and home by way of Amman.

Many may be concerned for their safety, but after a career that has encompassed business in virtually all Arabia, I have felt more at home in the West Bank than elsewhere. It would help them to understand the patience, restraint, and positive outlook of the Palestinians.

Peter Downey

Bethlehem-Bath Links, Bath

I was surprised to see a letter from Pamela Manning (5 March) questioning Israel’s democratic status. Israel is a parliamentary democracy with universal suffrage for all citizens, regardless of race, religion, or sex.

It is the only democracy in the Middle East. By contrast, no national elections have been held in the Palestine Authority since 2006.

Stephen Lewis

Salford

How to pay for affordable homes

As developers grab more and more greenfield land and wriggle out of building true low-cost homes, with the plea that they are not “viable”, yet show increases of 30-40 per cent in profits, perhaps it is time for an “excess profits tax”.

This could be used to fund the building of the social and truly affordable homes needed, and also to regenerate the brownfield sites upon which they refuse to build.

Ian McKintosh

Ottery St Mary, Devon

A litter-free lane, thanks to the Queen

Even though a paid-up member of Republic, with a neighbour I have litter-picked a three-mile stretch of country lane between my village and the next, as part of the Clean for the Queen effort. We collected eight loads of rubbish, mainly plastic bottles. I encourage everyone to do the same and rejoice that finally there is some purpose to the monarchy.

Patrick Cosgrove

Chapel Lawn, Shropshire

What a daft rule about punctuation!

Your report (7 March) that the Department for Education has stated that exclamation marks can only be used in sentences beginning with “How” or “What” surprised me.

I frequently use exclamation marks to indicate irony. I must remember not to in future, particularly as I didn’t do a degree in English but studied science instead, so am unable to write a coherent sentence!!! Oops.

Patrick Cleary

Honiton, Devon