Immigration is being misrepresented in the EU debate

John Major has expressed his disdain for those who raise immigration as an issue in the referendum. I would say the same of Ken Clarke, but I’m not sure his tone reflects more than his habitual affectation of boredom, which I take as an attempt to suggest his point is so self-evidently true that he shouldn’t really need to be making it.

I do however, share their objection to hearing immigration mentioned in the debate. The issue is net immigration. Which part of the word "net" do they not understand?

Shorn of that word, concern over immigration is open to the fatuous response “but our people go over there too”, ignoring the difference in quantity. The demographic significance of that difference is even greater when we factor in age profiles. Younger and older migrants cannot be counted as equivalent; the former tending to reproduce and the latter not.

Abbreviating "net immigration" to "immigration" conveniently creates the impression of Brexiteers having an aversion to ethnic mixing. It also suggests that the tiresome Brits are carping again about something which everyone else in Europe is happy with. But they can hardly be seen as happy with something they haven’t actually experienced and probably wouldn’t tolerate for long if they did. Whether by accident or very cunning design, most of their countries do not attract a substantial surplus of arrivals over departures.

A conspicuous counter-example to this is Germany. Why their apparent equanimity? They are that rare phenomenon, a nation with an intelligentsia even more racked with racial guilt than the British. There as here, to notice that your share of the population and gene pool is in sharp decline would be a thought crime.

John Riseley

Harrogate

I have long passed the point where I don’t want to hear anything further from either camp in the EU Referendum campaign (I won’t call it a debate!). I feel very insulted by both sides’ assumption that I will take their increasingly wild and desperate lies, distortions and misrepresentations as actual “facts”. Are the protagonists so arrogant as to think that the public are that gullible (a rhetorical question!)

The rather brutal real truth is that it won’t matter in the medium to long term whether we stay in the EU or leave. The reason for this statement is that if the EU continues with its present policies and plans it will fail financially, economically, socially and politically probably within about the next 30 years. It has already started to fail on the financial front and that will continue to worsen because the underlying assumptions on which it proceeds are fundamentally flawed. The increased financial pressures and consequential economic downturn combined with ever-growing migration problems both from with the enlarged EU and externally will produce increasing social unrest, more incidents of separatist terrorist acts and possibly even one or two small scale intra EU wars. Whether we are in or out of the EU we will be deeply affected by all of this.

People may say that my analysis is grossly pessimistic, to which I would reply that it is merely realistic. If you stand back and look without bias at the EU and its members now, its plans for the future and the world situation and if you use history as a guide, you will see the logic of the conclusion.

The only way I can see to avoid my scenario being fulfilled is for the EU to start formally dissolving itself now in an orderly fashion. Will that happen? Of course not. There are too many people with vested interests (whether financial, political or personal) who will not allow that to even be considered. So there is nothing we in the UK can do to stop the inevitable eventual collapse of the EU or avoid its devastating effects.

Malcolm Maddock

Fulford

In Letters, PJ Manasseh bemoans the amount of sport on the BBC and states "I do not watch cricket, football, snooker or tennis".

I would love to know which BBC channel the cricket is on and when.

John Schluter

Guildford

Can we please cut through the smoke-screen spin about cheaper holidays causing term-time removal of children from school. There is a fundamental principle at issue here: the right of taxpaying parents to determine their child’s education, not those whom they pay. As far as I am aware, subject to the requirement of regular attendance at school, there is nothing in relevant statutes and regulations, preventing the parent from removing their child from school at and for such times as they see fit, or requiring them to ask the head teacher (whom they pay) for permission to do so.

And what is the legal basis for local government automatically fining those who have not breached the regular attendance requirement? Presumably all such fines levied in the past are illegal or ultra vires, and should be refunded? It does seem to be yet another case of bureaucratic jacks-in-office bullying those who do not have the confidence, knowledge of the law or means to oppose them.

Dr Peter Draggett,

Farlington

The recent court ruling on this subject prompts me to wonder why parents are not punished for allowing their children to be off school due to illness.

Surely in the event of sickness teachers, children and parents should, and hopefully do, work together to catch up on any missed lessons. Why shouldn't pre-agreed holiday in term time be treated in the same way? In that way a holiday would defer learning rather that cause it to be completely missed.

Additionally, you have to ask why a week of missed teaching could have a severe effect on a child's education. Is it because they are face to face with the teachers for too short a time? My local secondary school has lessons from 8.30 to 3pm; adding another hour onto that day would increase time for lessons and better prepare children for the real world once known as “9 to 5”.

Nick Haward

Ms Cox, who describes herself as “on the left of the party” and “definitely not a Blairite” (Jeremy Corbyn could face leadership challenge next month, Labour MP suggests, Andrew Grice, 13 May) yet voted for Liz Kendall: surely mutually exclusive?

She continues “Jeremy needs to accept that we are trying to be critical friends. Some of the people around him are very good at talking to the movement that helped propel Jeremy to power in the party – a really important constituency who are passionate, principled and excited“, and while the 'critical' is obvious, the 'friend' bit is more difficult to identify. They must 'try' harder.

I note Cox can't bring herself to accept that it was the party membership that ”propelled him to power“, still supports him and sees her 'critical friends' as a treacherous contingent, yes Blairites, and it is they who are damaging the party's prospects, not the principled leader.

Eddie Dougall

Bury St. Edmunds