DOESN’T the fact that Ms Lovina Roe’s views on the EU are shared by others like Julia Pannell (Letters, January 13) merely show the degree of misunderstanding prevailing about what the EU is and what it can do?

Of course Catalonia is a matter for international concern, but Ms Roe and her ilk aren’t helping. Let me say unequivocally, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is not a proactive political body. It has no remit to initiate any action of the kind Ms Roe seems to want it to. The court only exists to hear cases brought to it as the ultimate arbiter in human rights. And once it reaches its decision, which is final, it has no power to enforce those decisions, it being a state’s international relationship with others forcing compliance that in reality effects the judgment. The EU only has the power to ensure that member states comply with its charter, particularly in this case in relationship to their democratic conduct.

In Catalonia’s case a complaint would need to be made through Spain’s national courts, and only after a decision was taken there would the case be referred to the ECtHR, and only after a decision was reached there could the EU take any action, and its only available course would be to exclude Spain from membership.

To my knowledge no such cases have been raised, and no referral to the ECtHR is in the offing. And given the time it takes for such cases to progress, the matter is not going to come before the EU any time soon. Whether there should be a different framework examining and dealing with members’ political misconduct is a different matter, for members to decide.

I say again, the EU can not be seen to be interfering in its members’ internal politics and as a trading bloc and not a political power base, neither should it.

Where Ms Pannell’s argument falls down when she quotes the Lisbon Treaty is her failure to recognise that according to the constitution of Spain it is the Catalans who are in breach of the law, and though she believes anecdotal evidence about what happened in Catalonia, this is not sufficient proof of a legal standard for any direct action to be taken by the EU. Perhaps this explains why the other nations of the EU are not voicing any support directly?

Isn’t the worrying aspect here the fundamental misunderstand-ing of Ms Roe and her ilk about what the EU is, how it operates and what its powers actually are?

And doesn’t this clearly prove that the subject of Brexit was too complicated for many in the electorate who appear to have voted emotionally, and that our membership of the EU should have been left to elected and accountable MPs to decide, based on a full inquiry into, and comprehensive evaluation of, what the ramifications of leaving actually are?

Jim Taylor
Edinburgh

THANK you Julia Pannell for your support, which I very much appreciate. I do not use social media but having experienced the responses to my letters, I understand why some people have cancelled their accounts.

I am disappointed that the leaders of parties which support independence have ignored the criticisms which I, and many others, have of the EU and, consequently, why I voted to leave it. Ignoring these criticisms or resorting to sarcasm are not appropriate responses. Rather, it is sometimes a person’s or an institution’s good friends who are in the best position to offer constructive criticism, and what they say ought to be given serious consideration.

As I reach for the “send” button I am aware that I court vituperative responses, but I cannot remain silent on what I believe is a vitally important issue.

Lovina Roe
Perth