Dear Sir,
Paul urges us to be transformed by the renewal of our minds. I did not think your discussion of the EU in January’s Commentary helped to achieve this. First, it presented an overly simplified caricature of the EU. Some unelected officials (e.g. civil servants, judges, governor of the Bank of England, etc.) do not create an undemocratic system. The EU is a unique institution, which balances the power of the member states’ elected governments, with the common interests of Europeans as a whole. The predicament of Greece, while uncomfortable, is an example of how the narrow self interest of a single state sometimes needs to be controlled. This is how international relations work. Uncomfortable, but better than armed conflict or trade sanctions. This is surely something to be celebrated more than criticised.
Second, it is untrue to suggest that either Greece or the UK is in the Hotel California lounge. Either state could leave if they wished to – but may find it is economically too damaging to do so, because each relies on trade within the EU. This trade is built on the ‘four freedoms’ of movement (goods, capital, people and services), which require common rules. Finding a deal which preserves the level of trade the UK needs is genuinely difficult. The Leave campaign was not upfront about this, and a second referendum would be a better expression of democracy than pretending that everyone wants to erect a hard border.
