Sir, As joint secretary of the Brussels Conference of United Europe in 1949, a delegate to the Parliamentary Assembly in Strasbourg, a Foreign Office minister in two UK governments and, finally, Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, I would have welcomed the establishment of a European federation, had it ever been within our reach. But in all of the above positions it was clear to me that it was contrary to the politico-economic realities. Living at the centre of Europe today I know that there is no European country whose citizens wish to be governed by a European government with all of the consequences. The rejection of the treaty by the French people (letters, May 31) is the best news for future progress in European unity that I could possibly imagine.

The creation of the Common Market was a sensible and successful initiative. Now we can proceed year by year with attainable projects for furthering intergovernmental co-operation in Europe, and perhaps one day a European government.

There remains the problem of the euro, the absurdity of a currency with a bank to manage it but no government to act as partner managing a European economy. Part of the calculation when the euro was established was that it would dictate the setting-up of a federal government for this purpose. Even before the French vote it was apparent that the French, German and other member governments were finding their existing treaty obligations in support of the euro politically unacceptable, so they simply ignored them.

The good sense of the French people has put an end to this world of unreality created by theorists with their heads in the clouds. Politicians with their feet on the ground can now continue to work for a Europe ever more harmonious and more closely united in practice.

How to rescue the euro from its present predicament I cannot foresee, but happily neither the country of my birth nor that of my residence has been so unwise as to adopt it.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

PETER SMITHERS,
In Di Pradon 18,
6921-Vico Morcote,
Switzerland.
May 31.

From Sir Stuart Bell, MP for Middlesbrough (Labour)

Sir, The “no” vote in France in the referendum on ratification of the European Union treaty need give no one a nervous breakdown.

Declaration 30 of the treaty states that

if two years after the signature of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, four-fifths of the Member states have ratified it and one or more Member states have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter will be referred to the European Council.

Since the treaty was signed in Rome on October 29, 2004, a European Council to review the ratification process must take place in November, 2006. This means our own referendum must go ahead. We can then have our first public debate on Europe in 30 years.

Nor should the “no” vote derail the presidency of the Union that the British Government takes up on July 1. The Prime Minister should go ahead with his own presidency programme. This should include measures to ensure that the Lisbon agenda of March 2000, to create more flexible member state economies, is fulfilled. This would make the European Union leaner and fitter to meet the global challenges posed by the United States, China and India.

Yours, &c,
STUART BELL,
House of Commons.
May 31.

From Mr Robert Randell

Sir, In an admirably clear analysis (Economic View, May 30) Anatole Kaletsky identifies an important cause of the French “non”: the economic malaise of the eurozone.

He proposes economic solutions to the problem: lower interest rates and the reform of labour markets. But it is precisely the latter that is anathema to the Franco-German axis, since to embrace deregulated labour markets would be to dismantle their cherished social market economies.

The need for flexible labour markets represents the most pressing political problem facing the EU. Perhaps our friends across the Channel will only face up to the problem of their uncompetitive economies when they are looking down the barrels of guns held by Brazil, India, East Asia and China.

Yours faithfully,
ROBERT RANDELL,
6 Rose Court,
22 Kirkdale, Sydenham, SE26 4NF.
May 31.

From Mr Chris Sherwood

Sir, Sunday’s vote was a “no” to President Chirac, a “no” to “ultra-liberal” economic policies, a “no” to a superstate. Just about the only thing it wasn’t a “no” to was the constitution itself. The debate that flourished in France was notable for the absence of reference to the text and the treaties it is meant to replace. We in the UK are at risk of going down the same road.

In the end, it is ordinary people whose interests will be harmed, since a good constitutional treaty will have been sacrificed on the altar of political dissent.

Yours faithfully,
CHRIS SHERWOOD,
52 Rue Klakkedelle, B-1200 Brussels.
May 31.

From Mr John Bunting

Sir, Yesterday, for the first time in many years, I bought a bottle of French wine. I do not propose to make a habit of doing so, but a small gesture seemed appropriate.

Yours truly,
JOHN BUNTING,
Treliske, 77 Green Lane,
Buxton, Derbyshire SK17 9DJ.
May 31.

Explore Letters

• Feedback