The power to act in the nation’s interests on defence should lie with Westminster, not Brussels

SIR – Defence Secretary Michael Fallon claims that “We have a veto on all EU defence matters” (Comment, May 29). This is false.

The Lisbon Treaty removed Britain’s veto over EU defence policy, with its obscure but deadly provisions for “permanent structured cooperation”. Article 46 of the Treaty on European Union permits a subgroup to act in the name of the EU in defence matters. If you join in, with the intention of exercising a veto, then a majority of the participating states can exclude you from the group if they think your state “no longer fulfils the criteria”. This means you lose the veto.

Defence also now falls under the European Court. Lisbon dissolved the separate pillar structure of the EU, celebrated as a protection for the nation state at Maastricht by John Major. Article 4.3 makes clear that all member states must “assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties” and “shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives”. This article is justiciable by the European Court, and does not exclude defence from the Union’s “tasks” or “objectives”.

A new EU Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy is to be launched after the referendum, to create new European military and operational structures. We cannot veto it but will be bound by it, via Article 4.3.

Outside the EU, Britain can reassert the primacy of Nato. A vote to remain is a vote to undermine Nato, and a betrayal of what the men and women of the Armed Forces join up for: to defend Queen and Country, answerable only to the British voter. Liam Fox MP (Con) Bernard Jenkin MP (Con) Sir Gerald Howarth MP (Con) London SW1

SIR – Charles Moore (Comment, May 28) is absolutely right that the EU is unlikely to survive in its present form.

It is for that reason I am happy to vote Remain. The current system will collapse, or liberalising reform will be forced upon it, or a structured two-tier system will evolve in its place. We will be far better off still at the table, ready with ideas and support, as and when the change comes. Keith Adams Bath, Wiltshire

SIR – As senior members of Cambridge University, writing in our personal capacities, we wish to express our grave concern for the future of our universities and country if Britain votes to leave the EU.

British universities are among the most successful centres of learning and research in the world. They are significantly helped in this by funding from the EU. In the sciences, we have 22 per cent of European Research Council grant-holders, with only 12 per cent of the EU’s total population. In the arts and humanities, around 30 per cent of major interdisciplinary projects at Cambridge would be at risk without EU backing. The Government would not be able to replace this scale of funding if we voted to leave.

Our young people gain hugely from access to EU scholarships. The exchange of ideas and the stimulation of collaboration that comes from the free movement of academics within Europe are critical to research quality. Increasingly, research depends on collaborative access to larger networks and populations than Britain can provide.

The major issues of our time – in security, energy, environmental sustainability, health and the globalised economy – take no account of national borders. With the rise of academic centres in America and Asia, we will only maintain our foremost position in research and innovation if we combine our research resources within a reformed EU. Our future economic growth depends on it. Dame Athene Donald Dame Sandra Dawson Sir Michael Atiyah Lord Rowan Williams and 532 others: see telegraph.co.uk