times letters
Nature of the EU
From Mr Keith Kyle
Sir, Mr Michael C. Chawner (letter, July 17) asks whether “a free-trade area and little more” was not what the electorate voted for in the referendum of 1975.
This is a legend which should not acquire credibility. I spoke at various meetings almost every night of that referendum campaign in favour of a “yes” vote. At each meeting, I found that by far the most positive response was to passages which referred to the European Community as being much more than a matter of drafts and packages, but to its being a political advance in international relations of a very radical nature, proportionate to the scale of the armed struggle in which I had taken a very modest part.
Yours sincerely,
KEITH KYLE,
25 Oppidans Road, NW3 3AG.
July l7.
From Mr John Bishop
Sir, In their comparisons of the proposed EU constitution with that of the US, Mr Andrew Hoellering (letter, July 17) and Lord Rees-Mogg (Comment, July 7) are academically entirely accurate. But academic arguments are surely less important than the mind-set of the people concerned.
The US citizen is strongly supportive of his state and its rights, but when anything serious is at stake he ceases to think about his state; he is, first and foremost, an American, and can always be relied on to put his country’s interests before those of his state.
The French (or German, or British, etc) citizen may be supportive of Europe, but when anything serious is at stake he ceases to think about Europe; he is, first and foremost, a Frenchman (German, etc) and can always be relied on to put his country’s interests before those of Europe.
Recognition of this fundamental difference is at the heart of any electoral process, and hence the exercise of all effective political judgment. The European nationalist ethic cannot be replaced by that of America simply by the imposition of constitutions and central regulations.
Yours faithfully,
JOHN BISHOP,
27 High Street, Needingworth,
Cambridgeshire PE27 4SA.
July 17.
July 15, 2003
Euro bank charges
From Professor Emeritus Alan Crowe
Sir, Judge Anthony Thorpe (letter, July 11) appears to be making an unwarranted generalisation about banks on the Continent. When I withdraw money from cash machines using a card issued by my Dutch bank, there is a fixed charge of €4.50 (£3.12), irrespective of whether the transaction takes place in the Netherlands or elsewhere.
If I use the card when shopping in England, I am charged 11 cents (about 8p) per transaction, but there is no charge in the eurozone. I would hardly call this robbery.
On the other hand, for every cash withdrawal or bill payment when abroad, my British bank issues a fixed charge of £1.50 in addition to a conversion fee of 2.25 per cent.
Yours faithfully,
ALAN CROWE,
10 Water Lane,
Bures Hamlet,
Suffolk CO8 5DE.
a.crowe@bures.fsnet.co.uk
July 11.
July 11, 2003
EU constitution and democracy
From Professor Sir Neil MacCormick, QC, FBA, MEP for Scotland (Scottish National Party)
Sir, William Rees-Mogg (Comment, July 7) is concerned about the erosion of democracy that he believes to be implied by the European Convention’s constitutional proposals. He particularly draws attention to the proposal that in future a “qualified majority” in the legislative Council of Ministers should require the vote of states representing at least 60 per cent of the population of the Union.
However, the other leg of the qualified majority voting (QMV) test is that there must be also a majority of states for the proposal, in which respect Malta or Luxembourg or the Netherlands are numerically equal to Germany, France or the UK.
In almost every case where legislation can be approved by QMV in council, it must also be approved by a majority vote in the European Parliament. Until agreement is reached through “conciliation” between Parliament and council, no law is made at all.
If conciliation fails, no law is passed.
The Convention proposes a strict rule of publicity concerning legislative debates and votes in both council and Parliament. There will be no more secret lawmaking by ministers and bureaucrats of the kind facilitated by the “intergovernmental” conception of European decision-making. Legislation will be by two democratically legitimate bodies, differently mandated by their electorate.
The proposals also contain an “exit clause” in which, if unforeseen consequences arise that any member state considers profoundly inimical to democracy and self-government, there is an explicit and unqualified right to withdraw from the Union in accordance with the state’s own constitutional processes.
I am proud to have participated in a Convention that has drafted a plan for an effectively democratic EU that stops far short of being a state, much less a superstate.
I do have a most serious reservation concerning exclusive powers over fisheries that I judge inimical to a profound Scottish interest. These demonstrate the misfortunes that can befall a small European nation that is not a member state of the Union. Those that are members seem well placed by contrast.
Yours faithfully,
NEIL MacCORMICK
(Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance; substitute member, European Convention 2002-03),
European Parliament,
Rue Wiertz, 1047 Brussels.
nmaccormick@europarl.eu.int
July 7.
Blair’s credibility in the firing line
From Mr Ted Bell
Sir, Now our Prime Minister is talking to MPs about being sure that they will find “programmes” for weapons of mass destruction (report, July 9).
One moment — didn’t we go to war because they had WMD (ready in 45 minutes), not just programmes?
Boy, talk about spin!
Yours faithfully,
TED BELL,
20 Newton Court,
Old Windsor, Berkshire SL4 2SN.
tedmbell@compuserve.com
July 9.
From Mr Brian Hughes
Sir, Republicans in the US, finding that they couldn’t defeat President Clinton at the ballot box, are alleged to have turned instead to character assassination. The current attacks on Tony Blair’s integrity look like part of a similar campaign. His attackers may be full of hope that their target is especially vulnerable because, as Anthony Howard writes (T2, July 8): “He has made morality so much his stock in trade that doubts as to his credibility are bound to be lethal.”
However, given that the attack seems centred on the Opposition leader’s oft-repeated gibe that “no one believes a word he says any longer”, Mr Blair’s many fans can take heart. People still care what he says. In contrast, virtually no one bothers to listen to IDS.
Yours faithfully,
BRIAN HUGHES,
57 Leckhampton Road, Cheltenham,
Gloucestershire GL53 0BJ.
b@hugmail.fsnet.co.uk
July 8.
From Mr Mike Bennett
Sir, The last few years of government news management have increased my cynicism to unheard-of levels. I wonder if the BBC (letters, July 8) was deliberately fed a false story so that the Government could then hit back and marginalise a thorn in its side? That would be a trick worthy of the most Stalinist times in old Labour.
In my mind the whole issue of the dossiers was suspect before the BBC report. I did not rely on a single news source for my information.
Yours faithfully,
MIKE BENNETT,
121 Brixham Crescent,
Ruislip, Middlesex HA4 8TT.
July 9.
From Professor R. Mansell Prothero
Sir, When are we likely to hear the Prime Minister being interviewed On the Ropes by John Humphrys on BBC Radio 4?
Yours faithfully,
R. MANSELL PROTHERO,
Vine House,
26 Parkgate Road,
Neston, South Wirral CH64 9XE.
July 9.
