Hear All Sides

EUROPEAN UNION

GUS O'Donnell, the Treasury official in charge of the Government's five euro tests, recently said that there can never be a "clear and unambiguous" economic case for Britain to join the euro and that it would ultimately be "a political decision".

This leaves Government policy on the euro in shreds. Supporters of the euro are increasingly admitting that the economic costs of joining the euro are less important to them than the ability to strut on the political stage. They want Britain to give up the pound, even if it causes economic problems for the rest of us. But why should we put British jobs and prosperity at risk just so those politicians can advance their own careers?

These are the same politicians who get excited by polls, which show that, although most people in Britain are against the euro, the majority in the country also thinks it is "inevitable". But the only reason people think it is inevitable is because they do not trust politicians to keep their word and respect the views of the voters.

This is a sad reflection on the current state of politics, and hardly a reason for pro-euro politicians to rejoice.

In an uncertain time for the global economy, the Bank of England has been able to react faster and cut interest rates further in order to protect the economy against the downturn. We now have the best economic outlook in the coming year of any major economy in the world. If we were to replace the pound with the euro, we would lose control, which would be the quickest way to take us back to the boom and bust of the past.

Now we know there is no compelling economic case for joining the euro, it is time for the Government to be honest about what it intends to do. - John Elliott, Chairman, Business for Sterling North East.

W COLLINSON (HAS, Jan 21) once again refuses to let truth get in the way of his "blind devotion" to the Tony Blair-Brussels agenda, in its relentless pursuit of the demise of our parliamentary democracy.

He advises those opposed to the increasing tyranny of the EU to "obey the law". May I remind Mr Collinson that Steven Thoburn and others were not in breach of the "law", but were transgressing an EU directive. Under our constitution a "law" is placed on the statute book, having been fully debated, and approved by both Houses of Parliament, and having been granted the Royal Assent.

The EU directive outlawing imperial trading received no parliamentary debate whatsoever, and, was therefore "unlawfully" attached to the 1985 Weights and Measures Act. An action blatantly in breach of the British Constitution.

In short, a directive issued by a body which is totally unaccountable to the British electorate, (the European Commission) can now take primacy over laws constitutionally derived through a sovereign, democratically-elected parliament. When the first prosecution of a pub landlord for serving a customer a "pint of beer" takes place, perhaps the facts will penetrate. This allusion is not fanciful, it is commensurate with the directive referred to above.

No doubt Mr Collinson will leap to the defence of the prosecuting body, as he has done in the Steven Thoburn case. - D Pascoe, Hartlepool.

SELBY DISASTER

A LETTER concerning Gary Hart (HAS, Jan 16) illustrates the strangely contorted thinking which underpins much of our so-called tolerant society today.

This is a culture which heaps blame upon the innocent in order to spare the guilty.

The pensioner attacked in his/her own home is reproved for having inadequate bolts and chains on the door. The motorist whose car is stolen is threatened with proceedings for having no immobiliser on the car. The woman who is assaulted while out alone after dark is accused of inviting disaster.

And now an unknown correspondent asserts that, unless we spend a king's ransom on precautions against dozing drivers, we have only ourselves to blame for the catastrophes they cause.

The Government did not blame Gary Hart, as your correspondent alleges. He was found guilty by twelve of his fellow citizens in a court of law. How could they possibly have come to any other verdict? - B Jarratt, Richmond.

FIREWORKS CONTROL

REGARDING the comments made by Pearl Hall (HAS, Jan 21), this Government, along with previous governments, probably dating back to Guy Fawkes himself, is not concerned with the issue of fireworks control.

This is because they are on another planet, where clouds are low and political heads are firmly embedded in them.

They do not see this problem as a political swingometer vote winner. Why? Because firework displays in the main, take place on November 5, one day in every year. Politicians have 364 other days to forget the mayhem, the cruelty and the fear.

Some shop owners will continue to sell fireworks to anyone who cares to purchase them. Fireworks, in the wrong hands, are weapons. They maim, can kill and they can certainly destroy lives.

Unfortunately, most politicians are detached from the real world. Yes, we need a law which clearly regulates the use of fireworks. Commonsense should not mean a total ban on having fun.

If those in power will not listen to the people, then next time, give your vote to someone who perhaps will. Until words stop falling on political deaf ears, we will continue to rely on those outside of politics who continue to fight for the common people. - J Nunn, Carrville.

POP IDOL

I WOULD like to say that Zoe Birkett's performance on Pop Idol is fantastic.

She is a credit to Darlington and to Carmel School, which came over so well on TV.

Good Luck Zoe. - M Wilkinson, Ingleton.