Long-term Strategy in an Uncertain World

Dear Sir,

I am still not clear what sort of vision Mike Edwards is painting if we leave the eu both in the long and short term, despite his lengthy and detailed letter in last week's Chronicle, p18.

He makes some interesting remarks and I thank him for comparing me with George Osborne.

It is never easy to know what would have happened if we had chosen a different route regarding eu membership.

The fact remains however that we have been a Member for 40 years and many if not most of our economic ties are via this organisation.

He conveniently forgets that to trade with the eu, we will have to take on all their environmental, health and safety and social legislation and probably allow free movement of eu immigrants as the cost of it.

Perhaps he thinks we can forge sufficient links with the remainder of the world and just forget about our previously largest trading partner by a mile.

I repeat if he does not think this then surely it is far better to be in the room and have a say in the legislation. I take his point about the bureaucracy, especially regarding the SME world. My vision is of a leaner eu with far less red tape especially for the smaller companies.

Since his letter was written, David Cameron has stated there is no medium term prospect of Turkey joining the eu. The agreement with Turkey in which most migrants in Greece are transported back to Turkey is working in that the number of immigrants to the eu in April fell significantly. Turkey is an important country strategically and it is in all our interests to help it with its many challenges.

I also accept that our economy is doing better than some other eu countries. This has little to do with the eu. Our prosperity is closely linked to international trade and the more countries that have a substantial middle class and sufficient resources to purchase our goods and services the better. Leaving the eu would not prevent their citizens from coming to these shores and make it harder to return them.

There is a balance to be struck between maintaining our economy and quality of life while enabling the eu as a whole to prosper. This will mean for some time that the various countries within it will have differing economic and social indicators. In the long term we should aim for convergence with all the benefits that will bring.

In a sense, remaining in the eu is a long term strategy. In an uncertain world we will make some sacrifices in order to benefit further down the line from the increased trade that a prosperous continent will bring.

I don't for a moment buy into his idea that we have less influence because of our membership. In fact, our increased authority from within the eu coupled with our leading role in the Commonwealth is one of the chief reasons for remaining in.

I believe the eu can reform, especially if we remain in it so that my children will benefit from a world where the rule of law, fairness, tolerance, freedom and peace are upheld.

These benefits are in my view worth the price of membership. Otherwise even if we do prosper on our own, we will be surrounded by a sea of countries that do not share our values. Rather some sacrifice today than a deep isolation tomorrow.

I also suggest that the free movement of eu migrants whether we are in or out is in the long term beneficial to this country. Most who do not find jobs return especially with the increasing social standards in their original country. It is mostly fear that drives the isolationist approach and for the most part it is not based in reality.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Peter Hirst

Middlewich