I’m not sure that debating whether NATO or the EU has played the greater role in promoting peace in Europe since the Second World War is especially productive.

My view, for what it’s worth, is that both organisations have in their different ways been crucial to preserving the peace – the European Coal and Steel Community (forerunner of today’s EU) in preventing war between European states, and NATO in preventing Western Europe from invasion from outside.

But the future is surely far more important than the past in determining how we should vote in the forthcoming referendum on EU membership.

I’m frankly surprised at the number of letters you’ve published over the last few weeks urging us to vote ‘no’, when we don’t yet know what we’re being asked to vote on. We don’t yet know what changes in the terms of Britain’s membership David Cameron will be able to negotiate.

And more importantly, in my view, we don’t know what the alternatives to EU membership would look like. So far I’ve been able to think of only two, neither of which I find very attractive.

Firstly, we could leave the EU but remain in the EEA, putting us in the same position as Norway. But we’d still be subject to EU rules and regulation (including free movement of people), just as we are at present.

The only real difference is that we’d no longer have any say in drafting these laws. We would have to accept them whether we liked them or not. Surely this is a non-starter?

Alternatively, we could leave the EEA as well, and no longer be subject to EU laws. If we wanted to, we could then negotiate a bilateral trade agreement with the EU like Canada has just done.

Our exporters would no doubt gain some preferential access to EU markets, though no-one can tell in advance what the terms might be.

Yes, we could close our borders to EU migrants. But this cuts both ways. Britons would lose the right to live and work in the EU, or to take advantage of EU health care provisions. Is this really in the UK’s best interests?

John Eakins

Flookburgh