Letters: Why should David Cameron need the EU to guarantee workers’ rights?

SIR – According to David Cameron, the Prime Minister, writing in The Guardian yesterday, “paid holidays, maternity rights, equal treatment for the millions of people working part-time, protections for agency workers, even equal pay for women at work: all are guaranteed by Europe and all could be at risk if we left.”

But any benefit bestowed by the EU only comes into effect when enshrined in UK law, and can only be lost if that law is repealed.

So is that what he is proposing if Leave prevails, and he stays on as Prime Minister? Or is this just another empty threat from the Remain camp?

Roger Smith
Meppershall, Bedfordshire

SIR – Michael Ancram hit the nail on the head. Mr Cameron’s words before the election deceived Tory voters who might otherwise have voted for Ukip. Those people now feel deeply betrayed by Mr Cameron and appalled at his despicable “Project Fear”. If Remain wins the referendum, many, perhaps millions, will turn to Ukip at the next election.

Frank Field makes the same point about Labour voters at the sharp end of the migrant population disaster.

Mr Cameron tells us that this will be the “only” referendum on the EU. It will be the only referendum on his watch. What follows the next election is entirely up for grabs.

Somebody should remind the Tory party that its victory over Labour in the last election was only by 6.8 per cent of those who voted, and that 12.6 per cent of the vote went to Ukip. Had Mr Cameron returned from the dismal failure of his begging-bowl trip to Europe and recommended Brexit, then Ukip would have lost its raison d’être.

Peter Richards
Poole, Dorset

SIR – Theresa May, with her proposal that we should remain in the EU but withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, is doing a Tony Blair – promising what she knows cannot be delivered.

The ECHR underpins the Council of Europe, which in turn underpins the EU. To resile from the ECHR on a permanent basis would be in essence to leave the Council of Europe, with all that would entail.

Mrs May and her advisers know this very well and, perhaps more importantly, so do the Justices of the Supreme Court in London. Mrs May’s stratagem is therefore little more than an attempt to con the British public while, she no doubt hopes, positioning herself for a post-referendum leadership contest.

Resiling from the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, which interprets the convention, could indeed result in a great improvement in our national security. However, to achieve this desirable objective we must first cast off the shackles of the EU.

Terry Smith
London NW11

Labour anti-Semitism

SIR – I am Jewish and have been dismayed and angered by the Labour Party leadership’s handling of anti-Semitic views of some of its members.

When the elected leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition fails to come out and act decisively to stop members of his party expressing such views, we have a serious problem.

Words alone mean nothing when tackling racism. The leadership must stop the spread of such cancerous views, which, if unchecked, can lead to the attempted removal of a race by any means.

Graham Mark
Chester

The root of NHS woes

SIR – Kenneth Clarke’s timely article on the NHS’s difficulties surely implies the need to broaden its funding basis greatly. Other countries have long understood this principle.

Our almost solely tax-based public system is seriously inadequate. And if you artificially lower or eliminate prices (as does the NHS) you will both increase demand and reduce supply.

The NHS has long shown that if you take away competition, you reduce quality. If you do not have market disciplines, you have no disciplines that are non-political. You are always hostage to vested interests.

If management is not challenged, it remains condescending and protected. If there is a culture of ignoring individuals and making producer-interests dominant, we will continue to marginalise human compassion and better care. So we suffer delay, denial, and unnecessary deaths. Chaos necessarily ensues, as we see day-to-day, especially at weekends.

In a society which does nothing to encourage individual responsibility, it is little wonder that hospital doctors and GPs are overwhelmed, let alone A&E departments. Doctors’ morale is low and professional mistakes are rife, but too often ignored or covered up. They are never rooted out, in the absence of a proper independent medical inspectorate. High weekend death-rates are but one symptom.

The NHS is neither the envy of the world nor sufficiently based in economic and social realities. The insidious self-interested British Medical Association campaign is entirely wrong and Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, is right in his arguments. But we need more.

You have urged David Cameron, the Prime Minister, to give Mr Hunt more support. Can we now expect an economically literate debate, led by the PM, to change the NHS funding basis, in line with systems on the Continent, in Singapore and in Australia, for example? This is the only route to a proper, modern care service.

Professor John Spiers
Twyford, West Sussex

My very good friend, the milkman ...