NO FEWER than four of your readers wrote letters on the EU referendum and its consequences, published in your issue of December 1.

These letters struck me as weighty, and well-informed, though all were anti-Brexit.

When I wrote to you on the subject (issue August 4) I did not reveal my own affiliations.

In fact I voted, hesitantly, for Britain to remain part of the EU. I was tempted to vote the other way, however.

In the very early days, I was pro-European, though the EEC at the time had only six members (France, West German, Italy and Benelux – three countries).

I am inclined to think that the EU expanded too quickly in incorporating most of eastern Europe – which at the least should have been phased over a longer period.

There have been the financial irregularities in EU expenditure, which the court of auditors have struggled with and at times failing to ‘sign off’ EU accounts. This did not look good.

Further issues could arise over the salaries and generous expenses of MEPs, which at least are officially authorised and known about.

And what about the democratic deficit of the European Parliament, faced with a bossy and authoritarian EU Commission?

The EU is as from perfect, therefore.

Michael O'Neill

Railway Terrace

Penarth