Letters: Europe decision reduced to a Tory beauty parade

The following letters appear in the 23 February edition of The Independent

(Getty)

I will vote to remain in the EU, as I had always intended. I wouldn’t want Mr Cameron to think that my vote has in any way been swayed by his efforts to achieve a “new deal”, which have achieved very little.

Instead, this whole referendum charade has been nothing more than a sop to his Eurosceptic party members and a beauty parade for the next leader of the Tory party. It is shameful that such an important issue has been reduced to petty Tory party manoeuvrings.

Beryl Wall
London W4

Your political editor did not go far enough in his analysis of Boris Johnson’s strategy in backing Brexit (22 February). Should the country vote Out in June’s referendum, Oliver Wright made clear that Boris would indeed be seen as the front-runner to become Prime Minister. But I think Boris’s calculation runs deeper.

Had he backed staying in the EU, and the country voted Out, he would be dead meat. But with the stance he has taken, even if the country votes In, he stands to gain. He will have won the backing of the “outers” and could market himself as having the guts to stand for Britain’s interests above his political career. But given all his blathering about wanting to negotiate a new deal with the EU, he will say that his record shows that he has done his selfless best, but he is nonetheless a realist and is willing to commit to working for Britain’s best interest in the EU.

Elizabeth Graham
London W2

There is truth in Boris Johnson’s point that the EU “only really listens to a population when it says no”.

That is why his decision to vote “leave” makes perfect sense.

Under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, a vote to leave would trigger two years of negotiation, which would concentrate our partners’ minds and might well produce a better deal that the UK could then accept.

Dr Eamonn Butler
Director, Adam Smith Institute, London SW1

So we now have a date for the EU referendum and I will be voting to stay in. Not because I’m overwhelmingly a fan of the EU in its present state; it is deeply flawed and a great disappointment. But because, in or out, what happens within continental Europe will affect us whether we turn our backs on it or not, and I fear that a Europe without the UK as an engaged part of it would be less stable and predictable.

At the age of 76 I am just about old enough to remember how we ran things in Europe before the EU (for all its faults), and I can promise you, it wasn’t better for anybody.

Over the period since the first EU referendum, in 1975, the UK has had the opportunity to exert our undoubted influence to work with our like-minded northern European partners to achieve the reformed pan-Europe organisation which we all need to ensure both our future prosperity and security.

Unfortunately we have squandered this opportunity with in-fighting, back-stabbing and navel-gazing, and David Cameron’s recent effort has only served to project an image of us as a nation of whingers. Our Australian cousins must be rolling on the floor with mirth.

Peter Allen
Towcester, Northamptonshire

David Cameron has achieved nothing from the weeks of negotiations with the EU members. He says we will be stronger in the EU. In what way? We are already a member of the UN and Nato. Our closest ally has always been the US. There is no way in this world that any western country would withhold any information on imminent terrorist attacks.

Just who does the PM think is going to invade the UK? The Romans? The Vikings? The most likely invasion will be through the open borders system, as shown by the Paris attacks.

The PM claims we will be better off. We will never be better off while Brussels is tying our hands on every decision we wish to make and everything the PM has brought back has to be rubber-stamped by the EU before it can be put into force. What we wanted was control of our own borders, economy and courts; we have got none of these.

Dave Croucher
Doncaster

Knowledge of history is best used to help chart the future. The Out campaigners are looking back to the “glory” days of the 19th century, when Britain ruled much of the world and could afford to be totally independent.

Our fortunes are now much reduced and we are dependent on others for much of our needs. To think that we can stand up to power blocks and multinational companies on our own is a dangerous delusion. We need friends and to be part of a powerful trading entity – which is called the European Union, warts and all.

David Winter
Yeovil, Somerset

It is becoming ever more difficult to decide which way to vote in the forthcoming European Union ballot. Both sides seem to be making a convincing argument.

After spending several months considering the benefits for trade and peace, I found myself leaning towards “Remain”. Then, with the considerations of sovereignty and greater protection of borders, I felt pulled towards “Leave”. Now, I see that Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Gove are among those leading the call to leave.

Oh dear, time for me to think again.

Martin Smith
Ryton, Tyne and Wear

Did atom bomb save Japan from Stalin?

It is hardly surprising that George Elsey (Obituary, 22 February) continued to justify the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the big question, for which Elsey might have been the surviving witness, was: what did the White House Map Room say about Red Army deployments in Manchuria at the beginning of August 1945 and Soviet Union preparedness for a major assault?

It is inconceivable politically that the US could have accepted its sacrifices in the Pacific and watched rapid Soviet control of all East Asia without action. The atomic bombings cannot be taken out of their wartime historical context, but what the White House staff knew at the time is more important historically than whether they justified their positions later in other contexts.

We can read of US strategic focus on the Soviet Union at the time but I would have wished to learn what they knew. If the crucial knowledge of that Map Room passed from the known to the unknown with the passing of George Elsey, that itself should be noted.

Roger Macy
London N1

Don’t blame the speed cameras

You report (17 February) that the Dutch traffic information service claims that nearly two dozen big hold-ups in 2015 in Holland were “100 per cent” caused by speed cameras. This is a remarkable example of causation: it can only mean that speed cameras controlled distant cars so that they travelled faster than local speed limits and then, coming near to the cameras, were made to slow down abruptly, causing shocks to the travel flow.

Personally I prefer an entirely naturalistic explanation. It is known that the optimum driving speed regime for smoothly flowing traffic occurs when the speed variations of all vehicles are minimised; but there are always feckless drivers who don’t care about speed limits.

The resulting problems have nothing to do with speed cameras.

Professor Guy Woolley
Nottingham

Social care could save NHS budgets

The sheer scale of the NHS deficit being racked up as we speak should come as no surprise to the Government or the public (“Hospitals ‘under pressure to cook the books’,” 16 February).

One of the major causes must be the extra strain being placed on the NHS because of severe cuts in social care budgets; some £4.5bn has been cut in the last five years, resulting in fewer care home places and less care for people in their own homes.

Inevitably, people end up having to stay in hospital, adding to the huge financial burden the NHS is facing.

We must fund social care better and merge health and social care into one coherent department that cares for our nation’s health and social care, from the cradle to the grave.

Every pound spent on looking after someone in their own home, in a care home or through day care should be viewed as an investment in their quality of life and in saving money from that ever-growing NHS deficit.

Mike Padgham
Chair, Independent Care Group (York and North Yorkshire), Scarborough

The Boris and Donald show

If Cameron loses the referendum on the EU and is forced to resign, and Boris Johnson is made Prime Minister; if Donald Trump, through some misadventure, becomes President of the US, the stage is set for the commedia dell’arte.

Johnson as Harlequin, the buffoon, and Trump as Scaramouch, the braggart, or maybe Pantaloon, foolish and wealthy. Their antics should keep us amused. But it will not be humorous but very worrying for all of us.

T A G Foss
Tintinhull, Somerset