JOHN Glen MP tells us that he hopes for an informed debate about Europe, thoroughly examining the option of pulling out, and that the Prime Minister is focused on releasing us from an “ever closer union” enshrined in the 1957 Treaty of Rome (View from the Commons, June).

He might not have noticed that the “ever closer union” is contained in the preamble to the treaty and is not necessarily a formal part of the founding treaty at all. The relevant sentence reads “...determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”, not nations – so, a social not a political union. The Lisbon Treaty has already solved this with flexibility in respecting the wish of those countries who do not want further integration.

We can expect the PM to claim success in “negotiating” something that already exists.

As to “permitting our justice system to operate without unnecessary interference”, does leave open the question of exactly how much interference is necessary. The European Convention on Human Rights is one of the few parts of the EU that are worth keeping undiluted in my opinion.

If EU regulations seem too inflexible, that is the way the Treaty(s) are written, and more regard for our Common Law tradition would indeed be welcome. The European Parliament and Council seem too distant from South Wiltshire’s concerns, and should let us decide more things locally (“subsidiarity” in EU jargon).

Since 2009 (Treaty of Lisbon) it has been possible, if difficult, for a state to withdraw from the EU “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”.

Let’s see what’s on offer before deciding.

STUART FYFE Salisbury