True colours are revealed

THE mono-directional nature of many of AW’s arguments can be quite disconcerting (Letters, Tuesday). So little nuance, a complete lack of balance and a plethora of groundless assumptions. Debate? Not as we know it.

Describing Brexit as “a terrible mess” as I did in a previous contribution begs a really important question, a question AW fails to address. Whose fault is it? How about apportioning a share of the blame to those EU “diplomats” demanding that the UK should be punished for leaving the bloc. What was once an unspoken concern has now been confirmed in numerous highly inflammatory speeches.

A smooth exit from the EU would have been good both for ourselves and for the people of mainland Europe. But where democratic control has become remote and convoluted, elite self-serving politicians can more readily sideline the best interests of the people. Isn’t that what’s going on? And isn’t it truly fascinating to note that,

somewhat late in the day, archinsider Michel Barnier seems to have recognised this and is campaigning to be the next French President on a promise to repatriate key EU competences back from the centre to national governments.

The political structure of today’s EU is unrecognisable from that of the Common Market. And it’s still evolving at a rate of knots. No one can accurately predict what the future shape the bloc will look like.

But there are ominous signs. Good old Macron let the cat out of the bag a couple of years ago when quizzed about the possibility of a French referendum on EU membership. He was emphatic – “Non!” That’s a bad idea. The people would vote to leave, and I don’t want that outcome. Democracy? Not as we know it.

John Hodgkins, Seaton Sluice