Positive case for ‘Remain’

SIR – Much of the “remain” campaign has been focused on the negative economic impact of leaving the EU. However, the “leave” campaign appears more positive because they can appeal to our emotions: “We want our country back”. This is easy to do, but it is not an argument for anything. What exactly do we want our country to go “back” to? It is a very nostalgic view of the UK. However, the world has moved on, as must we.

It is global, multinational corporations that have the most power over us, not “faceless bureaucrats in Brussels”. These big companies need to be in Europe and so they have to abide by EU rules. Multinationals have budgets bigger than many countries and so, if there was no EU all the European countries would be competing for them, resulting in a race to the bottom.

It is the EU that has been trying to stop tax evasion, to stop China dumping steel, fighting for the protection of bees from damaging chemicals. But the UK vetoed them all!

It is only by working together with our EU partners that we can be strong enough to stand up to multinationals and demand that they pay their taxes, don’t damage our environment and respect workers’ rights. This is the positive case for remaining in the EU.

MATTHEW JENKINS

Worcester

Brexit aids the young

SIR – I have read that, per square foot, UK housing is the second most expensive country in the world (after Monaco), and again, per square foot, the most expensive of any of the EU countries. We now know just how the population has exploded in recent decades, putting ever more pressure on our infrastructure, schools, hospitals and doctors, coupled with cheap imported labour, resulting in wages driven down, etc. The burden of immigration tends to affect England more than Wales or Scotland, and England is already the sixth most populated country in the world.

It was revealed that one is more likely to vote for Brexit as one gets older, apparently the age of 43 being the tipping point, which perhaps suggests a bit of life experience and wisdom; although I note that all those from that group who want to remain in the EU, appear to be the well-off who can afford a nice house, private healthcare and schools, etc. We all know it is the young who, as a group, appear to be most pro-EU, yet it is they who will suffer the most: their struggle to get on the property ladder will become more difficult, their choice of school more remote, and so forth.

The politicians and the elite who are in favour of immigration never mention how our green land will become one great urban sprawl. One fact that is never talked about is that our land mass is finite. Already the south-east is choking. Prepare to say goodbye to the countryside as we know it.

When I was a boy, the UK had a population of around 50 million, currently it stands at some 64 million, and it is projected to rise over the next 25 years to over 74 million, with the vast majority settling in England – leading to bigger traffic jams, more noise and pollution, the population cramming ever closer together as the house footprint gets ever smaller. What a recipe for more stress and anxiety.

Given the above, surely, perhaps more than any other age group, it benefits the young most of all to leave the EU?

David Barrie

Malvern

We should leave the EU

SIR – When disasters happen in any part of the world this country is one of the first to respond with financial and material aids, be it a storm, gales, or other life-threatening events.

Last December this country witnessed very bad storms eventually ending with the flood destruction of two bridges in Cumbria, a road in the Lake District, plus all the flooding of vast areas or roads and house, with the added loss of livestock. The only help I have seen on the TV news and the media press was the help from the army and the young farmers, and £25 million from the government.

My question is, how many of the EU countries sent aid of financial and material help to Britain? In December and since, as far as I can make out, none!

This week it has now been reported that illegal immigrants are entering this country from small boats crossing the channel from France and my answer to eliminate this problem is to cancel all overseas aid forthwith and use the money towards increasing defence or our coasts and return the people back to the country they have come from. The real answer to the question to be ‘in’ or ‘out’ of the EU should be a resounding ‘out’, and once again be governed from Parliament here in London and not by the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

N M Dunkley

Worcester

Patrol boat lunacy

SIR – With all the goodwill in the world, a group of pensioners guarding our coast from migrant smugglers is hardly much deterrent. And the fact that they only work from 10am-6pm, leaves the key overnight period unmanned, when the boats are bringing people in and landing them on our shores.

To add insult, we learn Kent police sold off their only patrol boat two years ago for £100,000. This move is BONKERS!.

How and why were they allowed to sell it? Did they not think it was needed?

Amazing, that Britain has only three boats to patrol its 7,000 mile coast line.

GB DIPPER

Leominster

Attempt to ‘mug’ Farage

SIR – It would have taken the seasoned TV politics viewer about three minutes to spot that Tuesday night’s debate was a carefully rehearsed attempt at a mugging of Nigel Farage, who continues to annoy the REMAIN establishment, because he talks sense and is winning the LEAVE argument.

It failed spectacularly, because “ plant” Imriel Morgan didn’t know when to shut up, and insisted on delivering her prepared lines (ad nauseam).

Broadcasting standards encompass guidelines for programmes of this sort, and they were almost certainly breached, although this is normally the BBC’s prerogative.

Peter McHugh

Alvechurch

Disappointed by MP tactics

SIR – I attended a meeting yesterday at Pershore Baptist Church at which Harriett Baldwin MP and a Leave supporter put their views forward and then a Q&A session was held.

Mrs Baldwin expressed her outrage when a person referred to the Brussels attacks. I found this quite hypocritical and an outrage for her to suggest that this person had referred to these attacks for effect. It was David Cameron who claimed that UK would be safer from terrorist attacks like those in Brussels and Paris if UK stayed in, and outrageously referred threateningly to a Third World War.

I also thought that Mrs Baldwin did herself no favours by identifying UKIP supporters asking questions seemingly as a smear tactic. She had initially announced her intention to leave early to be able to present prizes at a Primary School; however by half-time she had changed her mind.

Perhaps she had the impression that she was on the losing side ...

I was disappointed but perhaps not surprised by her tactics.

A revealing meeting and good to see it held in a church.

Wendy Hands

Upton-upon-Severn