SIR — I refer to the letters from Messrs Gamlin and Shevels concerning the supposed effects of leaving the European Union.

First of all, Mr Gamlin talks about “facts” and, I suppose, if the organisations that he cites did provide the figures quoted then, yes, they are facts. But, as to those figures which are so confidently put forward as being fact then I have to beg to differ. The amounts involved are all based on assumptions which may or may not be valid.

Then, we have to realise that the organisations mentioned all have their own agendas and this will influence what assumptions are made, introducing a skew into the proceedings. Besides, there will be factors involved that we can have no knowledge of until a final in/out decision is made.

Thus there is a degree of error surrounding the figures quoted by Mr Gamlin that is so large as to make them meaningless. Indeed, such is the situation that postulated figures by both sides in the referendum debate are of very doubtful validity because we just do not know what will happen if we do leave. These spurious figures and the dire, unsubstantiated warnings posing as ‘facts’ in Mr Shevels’ letter amount to nothing more than scaremongering.

The case endorsed by these two gentlemen is not enhanced by a willingness on the part of Mr Gamlin to insult those who disagree with his view by calling them clowns. After all, what is to stop them insulting Mr Gamlin because they disagree with him? But then, hurling insults around does nothing to advance the debate.

As to being sold a pig in a poke, Mr Shevels, we were sold that back in the 70s when the first referendum was held. We were told that we would only be joining in a free trade area and that national sovereignty would not be affected. Oh dear! What an expensive lesson we have learned about the way the EU works.

Mr Shevels also seems to think that it would be quite normal for the EU to penalise us if we withdraw. While, sadly, such a childish and spiteful response would come as no surprise, one would hope that good sense would prevail and a more, mature stance would be adopted. After all, we buy more from the EU than it buys from us so, would it really want to stop selling us German cars, French wine, etc? I doubt it. Yes, the EU might hit us with tariffs but we could do the same in return and then no one wins.

Plus, of course, the greater amount of trade that we do is to countries outside of Europe. Whereas at one time trade with Europe amounted to over 60 per cent it is now down to just over 40 per cent. The conclusion to be drawn from this is obvious.

In addition, it cannot be denied that the EU is a corrupt, dysfunctional and incompetent organisation and it is suggested that we might help to change it for the better. Wishful thinking I am afraid. The powers that be only tolerate us because we are a major contributor to their funds and, as far as influencing the way the EU operate,s we are an irrelevance. The only changes that will occur will be those that enable yet more powers to be transferred to Brussels, so sucking statehood out of the member nations and leaving them toothless.

The question of whether to stay with the EU is too serious to be reduced to an exchange of scare stories and insults. What we need is a sober assessment of pros and cons for both sides of the argument, although from where we are going to get that I do not know. This is something that should have been addressed as soon as a referendum was announced. As it is, all we can do is look at the EU and the way it operates and ask ourselves, is remaining in really the better way forward for Britain?

Laurie Hambrook,

George’s Close,

Dunster.