Respect all votes

The Brexiteers make great play of respecting the will of the British people as demonstrated in the 2016 referendum, when 52 per cent voted to leave the European Union. If the will of the British people is so sacrosanct, why do they not accord the same respect to the referendum vote of 1975, when 67 per cent voted to stay in the Common Market? At the time it was understood that, whilst this vote was not legally binding, it was the final say on the matter and would effectively bind all subsequent Westminster Parliaments.

It is true to say that the concept and nature of the European Union changed considerably between 1975 and 2016. Therefore, it could, and should, be argued that the vote in 2016 was on something different from that in 1975 – it was on the changes to the EU in the subsequent 40 years – but that the approval for the Common Market, demonstrated in the 1975 referendum, still stood. It is totally possible to respect both referenda by leaving the EU as it is today, and by staying within the Common Market. This would have the added advantage of solving the problem of the Irish Border, so what’s not to like?

If the Brexiteers want to respect the will of the British people, they need to be consistent. As someone who voted in 1975 I deserve at least this.

JUDITH GILLESPIE

Findhorn Place, Edinburgh

Les Reid rightly reminds us of Germany’s massive benefits

resulting from its 1953 debt write-off and increased Marshall Aid (both justified by the growing Soviet threat – created by Germany!) and from the whole organisational structure of the EU (Letters, 16 February).

He might also have noted Germany’s insolent demand for our exit fee, that it has paid virtually no compensation to its invaded victim nations and nothing at all to the UK for the deaths and destruction it caused right up to the last days of the uniquely horrific and unprovoked World War Two.

It is noteworthy that these victims now seem to side with their aggressor rather than their liberator, that most of them follow Germany in refusing to pay their fair share for defence, and that on leaving Nato’s command structure in 1966, France point-blank rejected paying anything more than its immediate legal obligations.

The UK also devotes more to overseasaidthanalmostalleu countries, including Germany (Dave Haskell’s letter, same day) but aside from disaster relief, we should bear in mind the description 45 years ago by the development expert, Prof Peter Bauer, that such aid was the best method of transferring wealth from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. Increasingly, African economists and entrepreneurs agree.

JOHN BIRKETT

Horseleys Park, St Andrews, Fife

Dave Haskell says charity should begin at “home”, which he equates with the UK. Does he think money raised in Shetland would be better spent on helping pensioners in Surrey rather than starving children in Yemen? Most people think of home as the area where they live. I doubt those donating to charities in St Andrews would expect the money to be spent on residents of that town rather than those of Cowdenbeath or Lochgelly. Certainly charity can begin at “home” but it should not end there.

MALCOLM BURLEY

West Graham Street, Glasgow

As Britain continues to obsess

about Brexit, a crisis is happening over in South Africa of which we all seem unaware, Water supplies for Cape Town are running low partly due to poor maintenance and partly due to a prolonged drought. The need for water engineers and drilling equipment to find new supplies of underground water is now urgent. Are we going to help our cousins and friends at this time? The election of the new President has arguably come 20 years too

late for both him and the country. I seriously doubt South Africa will ever find anyone capable of filling Nelson Mandela’s shoes. We must help in any way we can.

NIGEL BODDY

Fife Road, Darlington