UK would be better in EU to take leading role in Nato: Yorkshire Post Letters

James Bovington, Church Grove, Horsforth, Leeds.

Your correspondent Richard Zerny (The Yorkshire Post, August 6) describes as ‘debatable’ statistics presented by both sides in the ongoing debate about the UK’s future involvement in European political and economic institutions. Most people will likely agree with him.

On the same day an article highlighted the benefits of the UK and Canada uniting with the EU to allow all parties to enjoy economies of scale from shared defence procurement.

One commentator, the IPPR’s Laura Chappell was stark in her assertion that “the UK needs to rely less on US security guarantees.” This is a view I’ve long expressed since such reliance depends heavily on the vagaries of the American voter. The US willingly subsidised NATO for decades and apparently accepted such bankrolling in return for effectively being able to call the shots. It appears those times are finallly over.

Those familiar with what I write won’t need reminding that I’ve often pointed out that Europe’s two nuclear armed nations, the UK and France, learnt different lessons from their aborted attempt to retake the Suez Canal in 1956.

Britain’s approach was to align closely (but not completely) with US foreign policy whereas the French sought to build a European consensus to complement and sometimes rival American policy. Canada now seems to be embracing the French approach and apparently there are financial reasons why the UK should too.

My belief is that NATO needs restructuring so that it consists of Europe, the US and Canada as distinct elements rather than remaining under the aegis of the US. Hence Britain and France could be the two ‘pillar’ nations in a future continentwide European Defence Union. The UK would be better placed to assume such a leading role were it also to be a wholehearted member of the EU.

I look forward to progressive parties unashamedly making the case for this at the next general election. I retain optimism but always prepare for disappointment.

Thomas W Jefferson, Batty Lane, Howden, Goole.

Rejoiners said they had stopped recriminating over the referendum, but still their “we wuz robbed” narrative abounds (Jas Olak and Peter Brown, The Yorkshire Post, August 1).

They must go further and give the “losers’ consent” that is the prerequisite of a respectful and functioning democracy.

They must accept that the referendum pledge to “take back control of our laws, borders and money” was the driver of the red lines that underpin our EU Withdrawal Agreement and also the election manifestos of all parties realistically aspiring to form a government.

Rejoiners need to “go out and come back in again”, getting rid of their grievance mentality and, having chosen to frame their campaign on the basis of the supposed economic ruin caused by Brexit, use official macro-economic data to attempt to make their case.

The “Trade and Investment core statistics book” updated monthly and published by the Department for Business and Trade should be their bible.

That source gives no succour to their cause. Let them attempt to demonstrate otherwise.