Letters: By focusing on the economic risks of Brexit, campaigners are losing sight of other values

SIR – An impressive list of University of Cambridge academics are writing for remaining in the European Union.

Their main concern is funding. It is true that in the event of Brexit, Cambridge could potentially lose a minority – around a quarter – of its total research funding. To claim that this cannot be made up for from other sources (including our own government once the funds are returned from Brussels) shows a clear lack of imagination. By removing the bureaucratic process of applying for EU funding, there should be enough time to pursue other options.

We believe that higher values ​​must be considered instead: freedom, democracy, accountability and legitimacy of government. It’s a little disappointing to see that those at one of our leading universities only focus on what’s useful.

Professor James Tooley
Barrie Craven

Faculty of Education, Communication and Linguistics
Newcastle upon Tyne

SIR – My 536 colleagues in Cambridge are protesting too much.

European research framework programs have been open to many countries outside the EU for many years. In recognition of the high quality of their research, Israel, Norway and Switzerland have long participated in EU research projects. The Eureka program, dedicated to industrial innovation, includes South Korea and Canada.

David Abulafia
Professor of Mediterranean History
Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge

SIR – If we vote to leave the EU, UK pensioners living in Europe could find their pensions frozen and not increased to match inflation.

There are already half a million pensioners in Commonwealth countries forced to live with this inequality and there are no guarantees protecting UK pensioners in the EU from the same fate.

We run a serious risk of producing a generation of pensioners who, faced with the impossibility of negotiating bilateral agreements with 27 EU countries, will be forced by hardship and poverty to leave their lives abroad and return home.

Roger Gale MP (Con)
Chair of the cross-party parliamentary group on frozen pensions
Bourne End, Buckinghamshire

SIR – Many people seem willing to vote to remain in the EU because it is the “safe” option.

This suggests that the Leave campaign has not done enough to inform voters that the status quo does not exist. If the euro is to survive, eurozone countries must move toward fiscal and political union. Measures to achieve this could include budgetary restrictions and tax hike measures that could make life very uncomfortable for Britain in the future.

WR McGill
Abinger Common, Surrey

SIR – The Remain side of the EU debate cites economists and financial organizations on the economic risks of moving, while the Leave side focuses on the future implications of migration.

Having to choose between these two issues is a zero-sum game, with several factors likely to either exacerbate or soften the blow of leaving (or staying, for that matter).

What began as a referendum to appease Conservatives’ internal strife has become something all societies should avoid: partisan, vocal division. Let’s just hope it doesn’t solidify.

Professor Duncan French
University of Lincoln

SIR – William Hague urges both sides to accept referendum result.

But how will that result be decided in the event of a tie? What majority – and how many recounts – is needed for a “final” decision respected by both sides?

Jeremy Thomas
Crow, Worcestershire

Threat to green fields Letters: By focusing on the economic risks of Brexit, campaigners are losing sight of other values

Linh is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Related Articles

Back to top button