Sir, – It was with initial disbelief but an increasing anger that I read the article by Louis de Bernières "The moderate case for Brexit and English independence" (Opinion & Analysis, January 30th).
As a member of the EU, the UK was not “governed by an unelected government in Brussels”. Every UK citizen was entitled to vote for their MEP, who in turn represented them in the European Parliament.
If UK citizens felt their voice was not heard in Europe, it was not because the EU would not listen, it was a reflection on the type of candidate they ( the UK people) had chosen to represent them in the EU.
UK citizens were not subject to laws in which they had no say. No laws in the EU are made without the agreement of the directly elected European Council and the directly elected European Parliament.
Member states can and do negotiate opt-outs from legislation or treaties of the European Union and the UK was top of the list in having four opt-outs, meaning that the UK did not have to participate in certain policy areas.
Mr de Bernières comments on how sacrilegious it would be “to erode our democracy”. Perhaps he should reflect on how the citizens in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland feel, where each of the devolved parliaments rejected the withdrawal agreement but whose voices have been ignored by a distant Westminster parliament. It might have been more appropriate for Westminster to consider an opt-out clause, as was provided by the EU for certain policy areas.
The writer’s lack of knowledge about the EU is only exceeded by his postcolonial delusion – “rebuild our links with the Commonwealth” – that former colonies whom Britain shamelessly exploited under military duress will now be queueing up to offer Britain free-trade agreements. Most of these former colonies now have trade agreements with the EU !
While commenting on how “the Third Reich looted Greece”, he has conveniently forgotten that when it comes to looting the wealth of other nations, the British led the field and even to this day they proudly and unashamedly display some of their looted treasures in their museums and even in Windsor Palace.
It would appear that those British elite who study classics completely eschew history, even British history. The writer comments that Ireland “is no longer a corrupt backward country” but is now an energetic vibrant place where anyone would love to live, including the writer. If Ireland was a corrupt and backward country, it was during the time it was ruled and militarily dominated by the British. Ireland’s current energy and vibrancy now reflects the Irish people who are liberal, well informed and outward looking in their views, taking their rightful place as an independent nation among 27 other nations in the EU.
With regard to his condescending comment that “even he would love to live here”, perhaps he should first ask himself if would he fit in here. His views are not indicative of the type of individual whom the majority of Irish people would like to see living among us.
His ignorance is further illustrated by the suggestion that if Ireland were being strictly rational it would also leave the EU and opt for an Anglo-Irish economic zone.
The writer should put down his classics and instead spend a little time reading the history of the Anglo-Irish trade war, otherwise known as the Economic War. Ireland has learned its lesson. The UK is no longer our preferred trading partner and now only represents 10 per cent of our trade. Entry into the European Economic Community facilitated this move away from Britain where once 90 per cent of our produce was sent. The EU is and will be our preferred trading partner.
Louis de Bernières adequately sums up his own position when, commenting on English students’ knowledge of history, he states: “They don’t know how much they don’t know”! – Yours, etc,
LIAM SCOTT,
Raheny, Dublin 5.
Sir, – Among the labyrinth of unargued conclusions and ludicrous assertions that feature in Louis de Berniéres’s contribution, two in particular stand out. In outlining how the people of the UK, or indeed the people of England and Wales, without London, are more discontented with the EU than their continental neighbours, he explains how it “was easier for continental Europeans to compromise on democracy because they do not have the advantage of being protected, as we are, by the mere fact of being an island”. Leaving aside the obvious problem with this that it assumes that having decisions made by a pan-continental set of institutions controlled by directly elected parliamentarians and similarly elected national governments is undemocratic, your columnist is making the ridiculous assertion that the UK is more committed to preserving its democracy because it is an island.
I can only hope that I am not alone in struggling to see how national enthusiasm for democracy can bear any relationship to the amount of coastline, headlands and sandy beaches citizens have to enjoy.
Second, he argues that “if Ireland were being strictly rational it would also leave the EU and opt for an Anglo-Irish economic zone”, continuing a recurring theme emerging from the British side in the negotiations that Ireland should know who its real friends are and be wary of some imminent betrayal from other member states after the departure of the UK is finalised.
This mischaracterises Ireland’s plight within the EU. Ireland is a small country that is not always going to get exactly what it wants in the cut and thrust of diplomacy, but I would submit that its chances of doing so in concert with other small states through the institutions of the EU are considerably higher than in negotiating directly with a country more than 10 times its size. – Yours, etc,
CHRISTOPHER
McMAHON,
Castleknock, Dublin 15.