If the British people take a democratic decision to do something – in this case change the benefit system – they should be able to do so without having the prime minister scuttering around Europe asking permission…
Zoe Williams misses the point about Cameron’s negotiations with EU member states (There is no master plan. On the EU, Cameron is flailing, 14 December). Restricting benefits to EU migrants may or may not be a sensible, legal or logical way to meet the concerns of people, be they “Ukip-minded” or not. But once our PM had to ask permission to do so, the issue was completely transformed. It is no longer one of EU migrants’ access to benefits, but the far more fundamental question of who decides how British taxpayers’ money is spent. It became a question of national sovereignty. That’s why organisations such Trade Unionists Against the EU are not awaiting the outcome of “negotiations” and are campaigning to get the UK out. The issue is as simple as it is clear: if the British people take a democratic decision to do something – in this case change the benefit system – they should be able to do so without having the prime minister scuttering around Europe asking permission. This will continue to be the case while the UK remains a member of the EU.
Trade Unionists Against the EU
• David Cameron’s negotiations on limiting in-work benefits for EU immigrants appear to have won little support. One simple approach might be to limit levels of benefit to those payable in the country of origin of the European migrant. That would deter those seeking to exploit the system and could disarm politicians in other member states, who would no longer be able to claim that their emigrants were being monetarily disadvantaged. It would leave the fundamental right of freedom of movement untouched.
• Hans Dieter Potsch, the chairman of Volkswagen, glosses over the truth of what his company did to cheat emission tests: it wasn’t a “chain of errors”, it was a chain of liars prepared to sanction a management mindset (VW admits to ‘chain of errors’ at company, 11 December). Or is he not admitting responsibility, even though he is no doubt paid a monstrous salary on the basis of being in charge? This incident just confirms that all companies need active oversight from outside to try and stop such appalling actions. They cannot be trusted any more than managers of banks and other financial groups. This is why we need the EU and strong legislation trying to stop such abuses in companies that think they can do what they like.
• Join the debate – email firstname.lastname@example.org
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010