LOCAL corruption is intolerable.

It is difficult to envisage any other than total agreement from the electorate on this point.

I am confused as to why corruption in the EU is not viewed with the same degree of seriousness by voters. Is it that they simply do not know of its existence, or is it that it is easy to ignore if it is "not on our own doorstep"?

The facts are significant enough, in their own right, to justify this country ditching the EU. We have now come to understand that employment would actually improve here were we to do so, so why don't we?

If you are sceptical, consider these, oh so provable, facts:

1) No official of the EU may face prosecution -- this sets the perfect environment in place for dishonesty to flourish.

2) None of their buildings may be searched, and their archives are inviolable. See above!

3) In 2000, The Court of Auditors asked the embarrassing question "Where has the £100 million gone which had been set aside for E. Europe and The Balkans?" (We may also want to ask why our taxes were being thus directed in the first place!)

4) What happened to the missing documentation for the two thousand contracts issued up to 1999, dealing with £800m when the auditors came-a-calling?

5) Why did the entire Commission and President have to resign in 1999?

6) Why was there no outcry when their immunity from prosecution kicked in?

7) Why were four allowed to return to impossibly well-paid jobs?

Ponder these points well before you next praise the EU. We cannot know whether the annual figure that corruption costs the EU is the pessimistic £8 billion suggested by the more sceptical commentators, or merely the "very reasonable" £4 billion suggested by those of a more optimistic bent.

Jonathan W Arnott

(Address supplied)