Why Tony Benn would have changed his mind on the European Union | Letters
Laurence Williamson may feel that Tony Benn’s argument against the European Union is vindicated (Letters, 9 July), but I struggle to think of a single law made in Brussels that restricts my rights as an individual citizen (as opposed to enhancing my rights). The argument of leavers that our lives are dominated by laws imposed on us by Brussels has not been challenged nearly enough. All of the issues that most directly concern individual citizens and families – such as health, education, housing and criminal justice – are outside the scope of EU competencies and are the exclusive responsibilities of national governments.
Unfortunately British governments for decades have been happy to lay the blame for their failures in these vital areas on Europe. The EU’s role in setting common regulations for trade and related issues across member states – while it could certainly be improved – is vital in the modern business world, which cannot be contained within national borders. The alternative to multilateral, rules-based approaches like the EU is the “race to the bottom” in which only the biggest bully in the playground stands a chance of winning, which is why it appeals to people like Trump. I think Tony Benn would view the matter differently these days.
Ian Bretman
London
Laurence Williamson is anchored in the past. Most people knew on 5 June 1975 that a vote to remain in the European Community was a vote to pool national sovereignty with other EC members and to become a leading member of a group with far more international strength and influence than the UK could ever regain; 67% voted in favour. Since 1975, globalisation has eroded the sovereignty of nation states. When some international companies are richer than many countries, only the largest markets can control the abuse of market position, as the EU has done.
The UK government has found it impractical to tax multinational companies effectively or to control immigration even where the EU rules on free movement permit this.
The future belongs to major powers. The EU is one and the UK is not and we cannot regain the status we had a hundred years ago. We need to be part of a larger group and we have already negotiated the most privileged role in the EU with opt-outs on the single currency and from ever closer union and with a rebate on our membership dues. Every treaty involves pooled sovereignty and our existing position in the EU gives the UK the most sovereignty we shall ever have. Nostalgia for the days of empire will not provide prosperity or national security in the increasingly globalised 21st century.
Martyn Thomas
London
I agree with Lord Adonis (Opinion, 9 July) that a people’s vote is needed to get us out of our Brexit quagmire, but I believe he is wrong to suggest that “in” or “out” are the only options on the ballot. That, essentially, would be a rerun of the 2016 referendum which got us into this mess in the first place. Instead, the people’s vote should include a spectrum of options. A democratically chosen, unanimous winner would emerge using the alternative vote system: ie voters rank their preferences, and, as specific options drop out, votes are transferred until the single most popular option remains. Clearly, this is the easiest way of agreeing what we want our future relations with Europe to be. Equally clearly, hard Brexiters would oppose AV because once the ballot paper offers a nuanced choice, the sensible majority will choose the most reasonable option, rejecting the self-destructiveness of the complete break with Europe.
David Hughes
Cheltenham
Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters