AM I to assume that Peter Hirst was reluctant to respond to my letter advocating leaving the EU because he had no answers?
He now says that we can argue about what constitutes evidence until ‘the cows come home’. No we can’t. All he has to do is to tell us his view on what the benefits of EU membership are.
To date he has be unable or unwilling to do that.
His argument, or should I say, lack of argument is ‘I like the EU, therefore it’s good’.
By implication, he also suggests that anyone who disagrees with him is conducting a personal attack.
He seems unable to comprehend the difference between a personal attack and rational debate.
He says he’s ‘looking forward to how it evolves’. What does that mean?
How can anyone look forward to something if they have no idea what it is they are ‘looking forward’ to?
So come on Peter tell us what you see as the benefits of the EU and what you are ‘looking forward’ to. Then we can have that constructive discussion you appear to be so keen on.
Unlike Peter Hirst I am not a member of a political party. I’m just a citizen who loves his country but despairs at what is happening to it.
Don Micklewright Weaverham
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here