Sir, – One of the most unsavoury aspects of the referendum is the appeal by Brexit campaigners against immigration as its main reason why the United Kingdom should go it alone. That campaign has capitalised on fear of immigration and the “utopia” where immigration is ended and economic prosperity restored, despite the fact that we do much of our trade with the EU.
The European Union has become larger than any individual economy in the world and its GDP surpassed that of the US in 2003. Trade from the UK to the EU in 2014 accounted for 44.6 per cent of UK exports of goods and services, and 53.2 per cent of UK imports of goods and services. The UK treasury, the Bank of England, the IMF and most respected economists have warned at the impact that Brexit will have on an already fragile economy. However, if those arguments do not persuade us to remain, what can be achieved by leaving and going it alone? If it is really a concern at the impact of immigration, can a post-Brexit UK manage to restore trading links while refusing entry to immigrants?
Most of those favouring leaving the EU rely on the example of Norway. Norway’s prime minister, Erna Solberg, has confirmed that in exchange for access to the internal EU market, Norway has to adopt a large number of EU laws, such as the free movement of workers, without any say in how these laws are created.
Following Brexit, there would be a minimum two years (the period laid down in the Lisbon Treaty) of uncertainty before we could start to negotiate terms. Canada was able to negotiate trade terms with the EU but only after 10 years. These terms have yet to be ratified. This month the Canadians have expressed the view that British voters need to confront the fact that if they vote to leave the EU, it would disrupt not only their country, but the world at large, wreaking havoc on the global economy for a generation. They have also indicated that another fallout of Brexit is that it could stall the implementation of the Canada-EU free trade deal and imperil the jobs of thousands of Canadians working in hundreds of British companies. – Yours, etc,
TOM CAMPBELL,
Newtownabbey,
Co Antrim.
Sir, – Robert Bates is correct that the EU is an "undemocratic dictatorial institution which pervades every corner of our lives" (June 20th). A core principle of sovereign self-government is that laws must not be passed nor taxes levied except by one's elected representatives. We can debate how good or bad laws are. But it is the lawmakers' vulnerability to the ballot box that gives those laws their legitimacy.
In urging Irish voters in the UK to support the continued violation of that country’s sovereignty, our Taoiseach should have the honesty and sincerity to admit that he speaks only for the well-off and political elite (the coalition of the comfortable). He does not speak for those Irish who prefer friendly co-operation and trade between sovereign states over unelected dictatorship, or whose standards of living have been sabotaged by the disastrous experiment of a “single” currency, or who live with their parents at 35 because a cramped apartment in the area costs 12 times their income. I would urge Irish voters in the UK to ignore the Taoiseach, free up Britain to trade globally, reject fear and strike a blow for democracy by voting Leave on Thursday. – Yours,
RONAN SCANLAN
Leopardstown,
Dublin 18.
Sir, – I read with interest John O'Hagan's piece "Brexit may hurt Britain far more than the rest of EU", Opinion & Analysis, June 20th). Britain has never been a happy member of the EU. She wants her empire back, but it's gone, gone, gone. She won't accept this reality. If she leaves the EU, which looks very possible, the world will not end. As Eliza Doolittle sings in My Fair Lady, "There'll be spring every year without you. England still will be here without you". – Yours, etc,
PATRICK O’BYRNE,
Phibsborough,
Dublin 7.
Sir, – There have been few voices dissenting from the position taken by the political establishment on Brexit. That is a pity. Whatever view one takes, the underlying issues and the extent to which they resonate the deeply felt concerns of countries across the European Union merited a deeper and more reflective debate. The whole point about the UK referendum is that the concerns of voters about policy failures across the EU have been ignored by those countries and institutions that hold power and determine policy.
Inequality has increased and is now institutionalised. Germany has a current surplus of 9 per cent, strong export growth and minimal unemployment. The peripheral economies are characterised by a massive debt overhang, a haemorrhage of wealth, income and, most important of all, of the young and educated.
The democratic deficit is more like a chasm. . The distinguished Financial Times journalist Martin Wolf went to the heart of the matter when he pointed out two years ago that: "Within the euro zone, power is now concentrated in the hands of the governments of the creditor countries, principally in Germany, and a trio of unelected bureaucracies – the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The peoples of adversely affected countries have no influence upon them. The politicians notionally accountable to them are powerless. This divorce between accountability and power strikes at the heart of democratic governance."
The consequences of failure in foreign policy and in macroeconomic policy are all too painfully evident. Europe is in stasis yet calls for reform have been ignored. There is a growing realisation that notwithstanding the achievements of the European Community, the anomalies, imbalances and inequalities that characterise the drive towards European Union now undermine those achievements and that legacy.
Brexit is a reasoned response to that threat. The real worry of the European elite is that Brexit may generate contagion. They are right to be worried. Many voters in other EU countries reject what “Europe” now stands for and are disenchanted by the obdurate rejection of fundamental reforms
Whatever the outcome of the referendum, it is clear that a “carry on as before” response is no longer tenable. Brexit may prove the catalyst for the rebuilding of a European partnership. – Yours, etc,
Prof RAY KINSELLA,
Ashford,
Co Wicklow.
A chara, – Some on the Remain side in Britain call for a kinder, gentler referendum campaign. That’s just before they brand their opponents “xenophobes”, “Little Englanders”, or “racists”. – Is mise,
Dr DAVID BARNWELL,
Roinn na Spáinnise,
Ollscoil na hEireann,
Má Nuad.
Sir, – One of the major issues to influence the Brexit vote is the migration issue. Last year thousands of migrants per day travelled on foot from Greece up through the Balkans, Hungary and Austria without border controls. Angela Merkel welcomed the refugees and said that Germany and Europe could handle the numbers. That was a clear message to other migrants from beyond the war-torn regions to try their luck and come to a Europe without borders. Later there was the decision that countries should take their allocation of refugees whether they liked it or not. If the British vote to leave by a small margin, we can lay the blame at the door of the German chancellor and indeed at the failure of the EU to formulate a proper policy on migration control. – Yours, etc,
PADDY FITZPATRICK,
Cork.