Britain in the EU: a history of alternative facts
SIR – When it comes to Europe, British political leaders are consistent in one respect: they refuse to tell the truth.
In 1972, when seeking to persuade Britain to join the European Economic Community, Edward Heath claimed it was an economic arrangement with no “essential loss of national sovereignty”. This lie was broadly repeated by Harold Wilson and his acolytes during the referendum campaign on whether to remain in the EEC in 1975.
Margaret Thatcher assured us – admittedly after being hoodwinked by the Foreign Office – that the qualified majority voting (QMV) that came with the 1986 Single European Act would be used only to develop the single market, especially in services. Of course, a single market in services (of particular interest to Britain) was never created – but QMV was used to advance the EU’S federalist agenda, abetted by the judges on the European Court of Justice.
John Major declared “game, set and match” after the Maastricht negotiations in 1991, telling us that the principle of subsidiarity would protect Britain from EU federalists. This proved false. In 2005, Tony Blair promised the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) would be reformed and food subsidies dropped if Britain gave up £7billion of its EU rebate, won in the Eighties by Margaret Thatcher. CAP remained unaltered, but Britain lost the rebate.
Now we are told that Britain has secured a victory by moving on to stage two of these absurdly distorted negotiations. This is nonsense. Punishment remains very much on the EU’S agenda; it is just that Eurocrats prefer to conceal the knife. They want Britain to appear the author of its own misfortune.
Britain will not get a reasonable trade deal unless it walks away and insists on a fair process. If we don’t stiffen our spine, we will get a lousy deal or none. Faint heart never won fair lady. Gregory Shenkman
London W8
SIR – The EU has conceded quite a lot, and Britain very little. The ECJ, for example, retains only a marginal role, which is unlikely to be activated.
Theresa May put forward a proposal on cross-border citizens soon after Article 50 was invoked. The EU refused to negotiate at that time but has now largely accepted the proposal. It has also finally accepted that the Irish border problem cannot be solved independently of a trade deal.
As for the money, the agreement sets out areas of obligation with which few could disagree. The payments, spread over years, will be no more and no less than the settlement of our dues.
In the end, the EU was anxious to be able to say that “sufficient progress” had been made, rather than face the alternative. Well done, Mrs May. John Curran
Bristol
SIR – At last I understand what they’ve been talking about. “Hard Brexit” means leaving the EU. “Soft Brexit” means not leaving the EU. Cynthia Harrod-eagles
Northwood, Middlesex