Woodley and Simpson seem oblivious to the idea that the people of Britain, with an eye to succeeding in a globalised economy, banned secondary picketing 20 years ago and no responsible government will want to reverse the situation.
They also seem oblivious to the way the global economy now works. They have spent most of this year worrying about outsourcing to India, which alongside China is creating jobs hand over fist. Yet they only want to compare this county's labour market with France and Germany, where the type of regulation they espouse is keeping millions of people out of work. Gentlemen, come into the 21st century, where your members understand the threats this country faces in the competitive world, even if you do not.
Digby Jones
Director-general, CBI
I share Simpson and Woodley's indignation at the obstructive attitude taken by New Labour on so many issues of social reform (including union rights) within the EU. They are also right that, in promoting a British version of the US economic and social model for Europe, the UK government has not only aroused the suspicion and hostility of working people across the EU, they have also denied themselves a clear-cut platform from which to mobilse for a yes victory.
But the reactionary stance of the government makes it more - not less - important that the battle is won for the constitution. A yes victory will strengthen the democratic accountability of the EU institutions, will give citi zens' rights new legal force and will enshrine the EU's commitment to social solidarity and environmental sustainability.
It will also create a European foreign minister and diplomatic service - making it possible for the EU to pursue its own global policies and not those of President Bush.
John Palmer
Brussels
Blair boasts that the UK has the most restrictive trade union laws in western Europe. The new EU constitution could help the trade union movement push these back: part of this constitution is the EU's charter of fundamental rights, which contains the right of workers to collective bargaining and to take collective action. There are good democratic reasons for opposing the new EU constitution, but they are not made in this article. What Simpson and Woodley don't explain is how a no vote could help British workers.
Declan O'Neill
Oldham, Lancs
Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley draw absurd conclusions from their justified condemnation of the government. Trade unions should be campaigning to reverse the current neoliberal line, but it is surely obvious that it is the populist xenophobic right that will benefit from a no vote in the referendum.
What benefits do Simpson and Woodley really expect workers to derive from a victory for the Conservative party and Ukip, and the non-implementation of the European constitution? I hope the trade union movement won't make the mistake of believing that any progress can be made by driving fast down this particular cul-de-sac.
Michael Newman
London
