Letter: The nations of Europe can't survive alone
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Your leader (19 September) asserts: "There is nothing the Euro-sceptics would like better than that the EU should be split into a federalising inner core and an outer circle of `free-trading' states." That is untrue.
As far back as January 1991, in a paper on European policy, I wrote: "A two-tier or two-speed Europe is a most unattractive idea - we would be marginalised, lose authority and involvement and would not catch up."
One of my main objections to Maastricht was that the Government failed to veto the disastrous plan for EMU and instead simply opted out - thus creating the two-tier Community in whose outer circle we now languish. The only way to remedy this is to insist that EMU be put on the agenda at the Inter-Governmental Conference.
Such a debate would address the "very serious unresolved democratic issues at stake" which you rightly mention in your leading article, and the question of the whole process of EMU, which is already threatening to divide the EU as Malcolm Rifkind rightly stated in Zurich.
Sir Edward Heath and his friends (letter, 19 September) would, no doubt, describe any British obstruction of EMU and any further integration as "anti-European", "nationalist" or "a betrayal of our national interests". Yet it was their generation which was responsible for the White Paper of 1971, which said: "There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty."
Do they now repudiate this statement? I have put this very question to Sir Edward in the House of Commons and received no reply. Nothing could be a greater betrayal, not only of the trust of the British people but of the national interest, than to allow Maastricht's plan for EMU and the present IGC's plans for further integration to continue to divide the Community and undermine the national parliaments, which are the basis of European democracy.
BILL CASH MP
(Stafford, Con)
London SW1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments