I FEEL that I have to respond to Tony Morton's letter of March 24. He says that emotion is particularly strong in the out arguments. All I hear from the in argument is fear of the unknown which is a very strong emotion indeed. If I belonged to a club where I found some of the rules unacceptable I would leave.

On point 1: Any organisation with a trade surplus with us would be foolish to cut off its nose to save its face. There is no necessity to contribute to the EU in order to trade. That smacks of a backdoor tariff. To negotiate a trade agreement the EU has to consider all member countries, which seems to take forever. A single country negotiating its own arrangements could do so far more quickly. Just one point on contribution. Who in their right mind would invest in an organisation which has failed to pass an audit for the last 12 years? We are told that many organisations would suffer if EU grants were stopped. As we contribute far more than we recover, the Government could maintain those grants and still be in pocket.

On point 2: There is no evidence that sterling would suffer. It has always been an independent currency. If we had joined the Euro it would have been on a parity of one Euro per pound sterling. That really would hurt now.

On point 3: NATO, which was formed in 1949, has been the biggest influence on political stability in Europe by allowing its member states the security on which to build political stability. We did join the EEC eventually with acceptance and goodwill. However, the lateness in joining was not our fault. For four years from 1963 General De Gaulle vetoed our application. It is interesting to read his reasons for doing so. Russia would far rather see a disintegrating NATO than the EU.

On point 4: Yes, we had an Empire. Those countries now comprise of the Commonwealth Community. Fifty three mainly democratic nations and states forming a unique bond older than the EU. This is despite the fact that we were forced to break many of our trade agreements with them when we joined the EU.

It is not by accident that the world's second language is English and that gives us a great advantage. The EU, in pursuing ever closer political integration, will become an empire in all but name. History has shown how many empires, however benevolent, have stood the test of time.

On point 5: The USA is big enough and strong enough to speak for itself on any issue. The recent negotiations with the EU has certainly shown me how loud our voice really is. On point 6: Yes, outside investment in our car industry has been welcome. It is also an indication of our stability and engineering expertise. There are many areas of industry where the EU rules exclude internal investment.

On point 7: Immigration is healthy but it has to be controlled to suit the needs of the country. We have had immigration here since time immemorial. However, this was effectively controlled by immigrants having to support themselves as my grandfather did. In doing so learning the language and social integration was essential. Let us not confuse immigration with asylum where we have a moral duty to give as much aid as is possible.

Point 8: Would we lose Scotland? I think that Scotland knows which side its bread is buttered.

Looking back on the way the SNP and their supporters conducted themselves in the run-up to their referendum I believe if England had participated in the vote Scotland would now be independent.

In conclusion I would love to be governed by a parliament that was not able to hide behind the skirts of the EU. People of a certain age such as myself have confidence in a country that has in the past survived successfully through far greater events than would occur in leaving the EU.

ALAN STACKMAN

Calne