Justin Welby is wrong: peace in Europe relies on democracy, not the EU
SIR – The comments by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Justin Welby, on the success of the EU (report, June 6) could not have been better chosen to illustrate the gulf between the opposing sides of the Brexit debate.
He fails to recognise that the challenges facing the EU are largely of its own making. Peace in Europe has depended on maintaining democracy. The EU’S contempt for it is the cause of deep and acrimonious divisions. If there is compassion for the poor and weak, it is hidden by a ruthless ruling body overseeing a stagnating economy brought about by the disaster of the euro, which has left millions unemployed and countries deep in debt.
The EU, according to Archbishop Welby, has been the greatest dream realised for human beings since the fall of the Western Rome Empire. It was division and infighting that brought about that fall. All the signs are that the EU will go the same way. David Rammell
Everton, Hampshire SIR – There is an irony in Archbishop Welby’s assertion that the EU is the best thing since the fall of the Western Roman Empire. After all, his post is dependent upon an ecclesiastical Brexit from another Roman empire.
Most of his flock within the Anglican Communion also live in the very countries with which we should be free to trade once outside the EU. Mark Robbins
Bruton, Somerset
SIR – I am puzzled by how much is being made of the need to leave the customs union in order to capitalise on opportunities in South and Central America.
In general, Britain lies around fifth in the league table of EU nations’ exports to the countries cited by the Foreign Secretary as being hungry for “more investment, more engagement, [and] more co-operation” (Comment, May 28).
If the Germans and the Italians and the Spanish – and often the French and the Dutch – can do better than us, perhaps the true barriers to UK trade growth lie elsewhere?
Peter Hardy Loddon, Norfolk
SIR – You report (June 5) that “ministers are considering crossborder VAT arrangements that would mean Britain remaining under the control of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) after Brexit”.
Shortly before the Brexit referendum, Sir Richard Aikens, a former member of the Court of Appeal, and Michael Howard, the former Conservative leader, wrote in your paper that in the previous six years, the ECJ had ruled against HMRC in £7billion worth of cases brought by multinational companies disputing VAT and other bills. They went on to write that more claims – to a value of £43billion – were awaiting judgment. Perhaps that figure should have been plastered on the side of the Brexit campaign bus.
Roger Stainton Buntingford, Hertfordshire