Andrew Davis implied it was a natural progression for the EEC, voted upon in 1975, to become the EU,(readers' times, March 17). This might be both naïve and complacent.

“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will irreversibly lead to federation”.

These were the intentions of Jean Monnet, one of the founding fathers of the EEC, during the 1950s. Successive governments and politicians of all parties have followed that deception.

My heart says we should stay in the EU, my head says no.

The UK parliament is fairly undemocratic with one unelected chamber and the other elected by a system which is fair only if there are just 2 parties. By contrast the EU has the top 3 layers of executive decision-making which are unelected.

Even the European Parliament cannot initiate legislation and one MEP “represents” 750 000 electors (on average).

There is far too much power in the hands of an unelected few. It seems the EU is an invention of politicians for politicians.

The only way the EU and the Euro can succeed economically is for a single government with a single chancellor. Does the UK want to be an Idaho in a United States of Europe?

In the UK we have a single language, government and similar cultures yet, due to interest rate control, there is a rich south east and deprived areas spread throughout the remainder. Can rich northern Europe and poor Mediterranean countries peacefully survive without massive transfers of tax payers' money from north to south? How likely is that based on recent evidence?

The EU needs a fundamental reformation, primarily to make it democratic. Listen to most politicians in the EU institutions and it is obvious that this is highly unlikely and their intention is towards the U.S.E. at any cost.

R.Garvey

Bush Bank