LET'S GO FORWARD: THE idea was that France would go first in the EU constitution referendum programme as the leading power behind the new Europe and vote yes.

Everybody else would feel obliged to follow because they would not want to be the one to obstruct progress when this could be done by only one member voting against.

France, and others of like thinking, would maintain the defence of their more relaxed social way of life against the less cultured Anglo-Saxon global business driven approach, and a united Europe could stand against America and other emerging world powers, protected against the fierce competition from outside.

What the French politicians didn't figure on was that their voters don't like the unemployment and cash-strapped social services which have already resulted from their 35-hour working week and half-hearted approach to earning a living, and they said no more, thanks. We had to learn that with Maggie Thatcher. Things seem to be moving our way in Europe and we should take that forward with goodwill. - George Appleby, York.

PAST VALUE

THE variety of conversations on the EU and domestic politics reveals a considerable lack of understanding. They are peppered with generalisations that are mainly negative. People are under a range of pressures dealing with their personal lives and finding time to deal with the broader issues that influence their lives is difficult. Many say that politicians should make decisions based on what is actually going on and not on what is in their heads.

It is not surprising that people opt to vote for the devil they know, giving those whose emotions rule their logic the upper hand. This is the case in France, Germany, the UK and probably many other EU countries.

There is a collection of treaties under which the EU works.

During the formulation of the Nice Treaty it was clear that the need to refer to other treaties before making decisions was overly complicated. It seemed sensible to merge them into the European Constitutional Treaty.

Some countries had or decided to have a referendum on the new treaty. The UK did not need to have a referendum but decided to do so. This gives the country a chance to gain a deeper understanding of what the EU is really about. Up until now that chance has not been taken and the narrow issue negative campaigners have been making the most of the situation.

Those who have the time to research the history of the EU can be left in no doubt of its past value and it is up to our representatives to patiently ensure that it continues to add more value. The union will not collapse as a result of the French no vote but it will make it that bit harder to move forward. - Bill Morehead, Darlington.

GREAT DAY

What joy! Alongside British victory in the Falklands, England winning the 1966 World Cup, the North-East overwhelmingly rejecting the regional assembly, the French rejection of the proposed European constitution will forever stand out as a great day for the British people. This overwhelming rejection now stops the European plan dead in its tracks.

I, among other UK subjects, can now sleep easy knowing that, as I approach my 40th birthday, I can look forward to remaining British for the rest of my life, and not a European citizen from the North Eastern province that the devious Brussels elite have planned. - Mark Anderson, Middleton St George.

COMPLEX ISSUES

THE people of France delivered a decisive No verdict. The reasons behind this No were complex. Some people wanted to express their dissatisfaction with the government. Others did not like the constitution - because they felt it was too liberal, free-market and British, and not sufficiently 'European'.

The French people have made their decision after a huge amount of detailed public debate. I would like us to go ahead with the British referendum. It would enable us at long last to have an intelligent and informed debate about Europe. But it looks increasingly unlikely that a UK referendum will be held.

What does that mean for us in North-East? It doesn't mean the end of the European Union. Existing arrangements for European co-operation will continue. These arrangements are cumbersome now we have 25 member states in Europe, but they do work.

My job as an MEP remains the same. What the absence of a constitution does mean is that the voice of Europe will be less united and clear on the world stage. It will be harder for Europe to speak with one voice when it comes to negotiating access to Russian oil, or stopping Chinese goods flooding our markets, or supporting peace processes in Africa. It will be harder to move forward with a European knowledge-based economy - and the future of this region depends on that.

Constitution or no constitution, the fundamental challenge remains the same: how do we ensure continued peace and prosperity in Europe? Those who like to say No need now to come up with some alternative suggestions. - Fiona Hall, LibDem MEP.

VIVE LA FRANCE

How splendid it was to see those ordinary French people celebrating their successful rejection of the EU constitution. The No vote's ability to surprise the politicians reminded me of our own emphatic, but sadly less celebrated, No to an elected regional assembly.

The French did not crowd into the squares with bottles of wine, hugging each other because, as claimed by their Prime Minister, they were nervous of the EU project or unhappy with the inclusion of Turkey.

Listening to people in the streets explaining their reasons for the rejection was to hear the truth of the matter. They saw wages dropping in order to compete with the less demanding Eastern bloc work force. Many smaller businesses struggle, as ours, with no national governmental power to protect them against multi-nationals and EU legislation.

In other words, with the official NO vote, the French people challenged the right of anyone to take over the responsibility of looking after their interests other than a French government, elected by and answerable to all the people of France. Vive la France. - Charlotte Bull, UKIP, Darlington.

SMALL BUSINESSES

JOE Keenan, regional director of Britain in Europe, says: "Local businesses benefit from selling their goods to a single market of 455 million people without having to go through endless paperwork". (Echo, May 31).

Can he explain then, why many small businesses choose not to export to the EU, but to try their luck in the big wide world, including the US, because the paperwork is easier to deal with than trying to jump through the EU hoops?

The truth is there has never been a clear economic benefit to Britain from EU membership and the political and social consequences of membership have had serious adverse effects upon our sovereignty and upon the social fabric of Britain.

Let us have a referendum please. But let it be about whether or not we wish to remain a part of this outdated, failed experiment. An experiment which has resulted in huge unemployment in Europe, which has condemned many European economies to little or no growth for the past two decades, and which shows every sign of bankrupting at least two member states (Italy and Portugal). - Derek Thornton, Stanley, Crook.