I AM writing to thank the SNJ for having hosted the EU In/Out debate at the Sub Rooms.

I think that the event was an incredible success.

By my reckoning there were 200 people in the audience, and to have achieved these numbers when there was an entrance fee, when the football was on, and when the PM was participating in the first live TV event for the Referendum at the same time was a real result.

I was especially struck by the passion and belief in the audience – on both sides of the argument.

This is typical of Stroud – I saw members of UKIP, the Greens, TUSC, the Conservatives and Labour in the audience, as well as of Vote Leave and Britain Stronger in Europe.

That such a diverse range of opinion can have such a debate in a (mostly) respectful fashion is a real credit to the town, and would not, I am sure, be the case in many much larger places.

Lastly a very big thank you to all four of the speakers, each of whom gave willingly of his or her time, knowledge and experience, and each of whom spoke in an engaging and informed fashion.

It is impressive that the SNJ was able to attract such a high-level panel, ranging from an MP and chairman of Conservatives for Europe, to a senior Member of the European Parliament, a prominent county councillor and the chief executive of a major lobbying organisation.

To my knowledge this was the largest and most successful EU debate to take place so far in the whole of Gloucestershire.

Well done to all those in Stroud who made it happen.

Richard Ford Painswick THANK you for arranging the EU discussion evening on June 2.

It was good to see so many people there but very disappointing that a good percentage of the audience were less interested in hearing both sides of the argument and inclined to heckle, insult and interrupt speakers with whom they disagreed.

We heard some of the untruths that we are also reading and hearing in the media from all sides.

However the panel members in favour of leaving the EU won the prize for misleading the audience.

I would like to clarify a few areas.

Turkey: Their accession to the EU has to be agreed unanimously by all EU members so we have a veto and won’t be the only ones to use it.

Trade barriers: If we do leave the EU it is right to say that there is a legal process to agree new trading terms between the UK and EU but not that it would be sorted in two years.

Decisions have to be ratified by a majority of the EU countries and also by the European Parliament and could therefore take much longer.

Again it is right to say that if no agreement is reached we can trade by the World Trade Organisation rules – such as apply to other countries.

At present this includes a 9.8 per cent tax on the cost of exporting cars.

We would also have to comply with any new EU regulations.

We would not have any say in these rules.

Migrants: The majority of the 330,000 quoted are not from the EU and whereas border controls are presently in France if we leave the EU, we will have much greater responsibility for curtailing illegal immigration within the UK.

Copying Norway and Switzerland: Norway pays for full access to the EU single market and abides by most of their trade laws, product standards, financial regulations, employment regulations, and free movement of labour. Switzerland also pays for access and has to comply to regulations as relevant.

The impact of leaving the EU, on our trade in services and on European peace and international collaboration, for which I would like to think we take some responsibility, were not fully explored.

So I suggest we all need to think seriously about how we vote on June 23 and replace dogma and self interest with an informed, longer term world view and perhaps a greater generosity of spirit.

Mary Wormington

Stroud