times letters
August 13, 2003
Referendum on the EU constitution
From Mrs Christina Speight
Sir, The 1975 Common Market referendum was far from the simple matter that Mr Brian Hughes suggests (letter, August 6).
Many voted “yes” on the clear assurance given in the Wilson Government’s pamphlet, Britain’s New Deal in Europe, that:
Britain can veto any proposal for a new law . . . if (it) considers it to be against British interests . . . [and] no important new policy can be decided in Brussels without the consent of a British Minister.
It also said, in connection with the threat to jobs and industry through economic and monetary union, that “this threat has been removed”.
Since we are now operating under qualified majority voting and under pressure to accept the euro, these undertakings were worthless. No wonder trust in politicians’ promises is minimal.
Yours faithfully,
CHRISTINA SPEIGHT,
20 Ramillies Road, W4 1JN.
cspeight@dircon.co.uk
August 12.
From Dr Robert Gutfreund-Walmsley
Sir, You report (August 4) that the Government is considering granting EU citizens resident here the vote in any referendum on the euro.
This is welcome. Most of them, having been denied a referendum in their country and seen prices and unemployment rise, are as likely to oppose entry as to support it.
If the Government is seen to be unfairly meddling or deliberately misleading, as your correspondents suggest was the case in the 1975 referendum, the electorate will strengthen its opposition to entry.
Yours faithfully,
ROBERT GUTFREUND-WALMSLEY,
2 Sandileigh Avenue,
Withington, Manchester M20 3LW.
August 11.
From Mr Arnold E. Tarling
Sir, Whilst we may democratically select MPs and MEPs to represent us on such a complex matter as the European constitution (Mr Leonard Avery’s letter, August 6), such election does not automatically bestow upon these elected members informed reasoning.
I, for one, have downloaded the draft constitution and, having read it, believe that Britain should not sign the treaty. I would like the opportunity to make an informed vote in a referendum.
Yours faithfully,
ARNOLD E. TARLING,
43 Highfield Road,
Dartford, Kent DA1 2JS.
August 12.
August 05, 2003
Consumer debt and the economy
From Dr Michael Connock
Sir, Your rather stern leading article this morning on the dangers of borrowing is all very well. But one needs to remember that it is largely consumer borrowing and spending which have kept the poor old British economy going for the past few years. Exports and industrial investment demand have been very weak, and without big consumption we would have been suffering the waste of underemployment of people and machines. That, indeed, is precisely why the Bank of England has kept interest rates down.
You may well be right in believing that there is no imminent danger of a sudden crash but, in the circumstances, it would surely be fair as well as sensible to do something to mitigate the effect on borrowers.
A “lifeboat” scheme of some sort ought not to be beyond the wit of the financial engineers. The details would need to be worked out carefully. For example, it might make sense for the Government to take over responsibility for some bad consumer debts (maybe suitably “shaved” to punish reckless lenders a bit).
The borrowers could then be made to repay over future years, at a low or zero rate of interest, through the income tax system. They could be banned from taking on further debt until their existing debt was repaid.
Yours faithfully,
MICHAEL CONNOCK,
Elm House, Bentley Heath,
Barnet, Hertfordshire EN5 4RZ.
August 1.
From Mrs Madeleine Heaney
Sir, “Takes the waiting out of wanting” was the seductive slogan which launched one of the first credit cards.
No longer was it shameful to build up debt, it was smart.
No longer was patience a virtue, your desires could be gratified instantly. Now we are paying the price.
Yours faithfully,
MADELEINE HEANEY,
Hall Close House,
Main Street, East Haddon,
Northamptonshire NN6 8BU.
August 1.
From Mr Rajnikant J. Mehta
Sir, My late father’s advice, given in 1955 when I got my first pay packet, is still valid. It was: “As soon as you get your pay packet, set aside 5 or 10 per cent as savings and a minimum of 5 per cent for the less fortunate; never spend more than 85 per cent; never borrow for luxuries — buy them only if you can afford them. Most important of all, have full faith in the Almighty.”
He lived and died a truly happy man and, God willing, I hope to do the same.
Yours truly,
RAJNIKANT J. MEHTA,
18 Leigh Court, Byron Hill Road,
Harrow on the Hill HA2 0HZ.
August 1.
August 01, 2003
Echoes of the 1975 EU referendum
From Mr Robert Elphick
Sir, Perhaps Leslie Fraser-Mitchell (letter, July 30) is rather forgetful in his recollection of the 1975 referendum campaign.
As the BBC TV News Europe Correspondent at the time, I had the privilege of interviewing Margaret Thatcher at the European Parliament in Luxembourg on her first visit to the Continent after becoming Conservative Party leader and just before the campaign started.
Mrs Thatcher certainly made no bones about the referendum being highly political as well as economic. Discussing the forthcoming political battle, she too expressed her utter determination to protect British sovereignty while campaigning for a “yes” vote.
Yours sincerely,
ROBERT ELPHICK,
90 Lupus Street, SW1V 3HH.
relphick@compuserve.com
July 30.
From Mr Colin Bullen
Sir, Leslie Fraser-Mitchell writes that he was deceived by politicians at the time of the 1975 referendum, but he must bear some blame for allowing himself to be fooled in that way.
During the referendum campaign, Enoch Powell and Tony Benn, among others, warned that the whole European project had the ultimate aim of creating a single European state, yet they received nothing but abuse from many who now recognise the truth of what they said.
How much more culpable are those who continue to profess a belief that the EU is not set fair to become the United States of Europe, in fact, if not in name. Only British politicians persist in the pretence that a Europe of nation states is involved, the continental elites being quite open about the federalist intent of the whole process.
If the constitution is accepted it will spell the end of Britain as an independent country, and no obfuscation of the issue by the Europhiles should be allowed to distort the debate.
Yours faithfully,
COLIN BULLEN
(Member, National Executive Committee),
Campaign for an Independent Britain,
119 Douglas Road,
Tonbridge, Kent TN9 2UE.
July 30.
