Readers' letters - June 16

I refer to the letter from the Green Party MEPs, Go green and vote remain (LEP Letters, June 14). As a long-time member of the WWT, I find it insulting they assume the EU should lay any claim to a concept laid down by one of the world’s foremost (and British) conservationists, Sir Peter Scott.

He had a vision long before the EEC and EU came about. Were it not for the pioneering work of Sir Peter, I doubt the EU’s policies as regards conservation would have come to fruition.

Martin Mere is wholly down to Sir Peter Scott and his WWT. It has nothing to do with the EU or the Green Party.

Sir Peter’s idea of conservation pervaded all borders and included Hawaii, with his conservation of the Ne Ne (Hawaiian Goose).

The very existence of the Green Party should be attributed to the work of Sir Peter and other like-minded people, many of whom were also British.

Thus for these Greens to even imply that somehow the EU, by simply recognising protected areas, originated the idea of conservation is far from the truth.

Also the notion that “the animals and habitats we take for granted locally are often rare in Europe” is just ridiculous. Each worldwide country has its own animals and habitats. Further, one could argue that some animals and habitats found in the EU are also often rare in this country.

Thus each EU country will no doubt wish to conserve its own animals and habitats without the need for any EU interference.

The suggestion put forward by the Greens almost seems to suggest we should have a ‘monoculture’ of animals and habitats.

All the EU can do is to promote the concept of conservation but leave individual countries to do what is best for conservation of their habitats in their own countries. This perversion that the all-seeing, all-powerful EU knows what is best for each of its states is a road down which many do not wish to travel.

In addition, while Northern towns and cities suffered under smog, it was only when it ‘reached’ London that MPs in the 1950s saw fit to bring about the Clean Air Acts, which of course the EU took on much later and extended it so fellow EU countries could benefit from cleaner air. This demonstrates it was a British origin for EU legislation.

I don’t recall the Green Party screaming at the tops of their voices when one certain German car manufacturer fooled the world with its emission-test fooling software. Did it demand compensation for all EU owners of such vehicles and the ban of further sales until this had occurred (as happened in the USA)?

By the way, Greens, as one who will probably vote to leave, kindly don’t presume that I for one “see nature protection as an unnecessary burden on UK business”.

You insult me and all those members of conservation charities and trusts who also wish this country to leave by presuming to know our views.

We do NOT need the EU “to protect many valuable conservation sites”. That is nonsense and you have shot yourselves in the foot by such a ridiculous assertion. Sir Peter Scott would be turning in his grave.

I did a lot to create the Lostock Hall Junction Nature Reserve.

I didn’t need the EU to influence my conservation decision.

Indeed I suspect I’d still be waiting for EU approval, as well as having to cope with all the red tape spewing out of the Commissioners’ Offices, which shows just how useless the EU is.

This was done on a local level involving the LCC Countryside Rangers, along with willing pupils from Lostock Hall High School.

Hmm, Green Party or just green?

A Stout Conservationist

Plenty of cash stays here too

Not all of the money goes to Brussels. More than plenty of it stays here. In the bank accounts of the over-wealthy.

Samuel Moore via email

The case for the European Union

Leaving the EU will be a disaster, especially for England. Scotland will have a referendum and leave the UK. The 59 Scottish opposition MPs will leave Westminster and give the Tories a permanent majority. So the “nasty party” will become even more right wing and become more “nasty”.

No member country has ever left the EU before – we are taking steps into the unknown.

The director general of the World Trade Organisation has stated that the only certainty if the UK leaves is that negotiations with EU and non-EU countries will be long and difficult and may take decades.

What Murdoch does not tell his Sun readers is that because the value of the pound is already falling, and will fall further if we leave, all our imports will be more expensive. As we import far more than we export, the necessities of life, including food, will become more expensive. The poor will suffer.

Apart from the advantages of free trade with 500 million customers, the EU has also protected our national security (71 years of peace in Europe), the environment, workers’ rights, consumer rights, investor safeguards, cheap flights, food standards and farmers and the poorer regions of the UK. All this is going to be under threat for ever if we vote to leave on Thursday, June 23.

Mike Turner via email

And the case against the EU

I fully agree with the points made by E J Tilley (LEP Letters, June 14). The Remain camp can’t offer valid points for staying in, only negative points if we leave.

They try to focus on the economy which might suffer initially once we leave but things will get back to normal.

After all, we have the fifth largest economy in the world and exports to the EU are falling year on year. The UK is Germany’s and France’s third largest export market. If they should decide not to trade with us, their own economy will suffer dramatically, therefore the economic fear factor does not stand up.

What does matter to most working people is the fact that if immigration is not controlled, everything that affects us will get worse – housing shortages, the health service, schools, and so on. This is not trying to frighten people, it is a fact – vote out on June 23.

C Fazackerley via email