Nuclear stance

Press, 7 May 1987, Page 16

Nuclear stance

Sir,—Contrary to what you say in your editorial (May 2), Sir Geoffrey Howe was utterly condescending with his remarks on our nuclear policy. Linking trade access with defence was clearly intended to frighten the less knowledgeable voter away from Labour, if not pressing the Government to alter its stance. Sir Geoffrey, however, made bald misjudgments about New Zealanders. We like being bullied by neither raucous Americans nor. bland Englishmen. If Mr Lange, through his greater appreciation of the New Zealand psyche, turns

Sir Geoffrey's antics to his own electoral advantage, then more power to him. The very idea that we can keep trade preferences by modifying opr non-nuclear stance is demonstrably false if we recall that, despite dur being servile members of A.N.Z.U.S., our cheese quote was reduced to nil when Britain joined ’ the , E.E.C.—Yours, etc., JOHN SUMMERS. Southbridge, : May 2, 1987.

Sir,—Your editorial (May 4) reproves Mr Lange for his remarksconcerning those made by Sir Geoffrey Howe l found Sir Geoffrey’s comments to be in; similar vein to those the Americans have been giving us for the" past two and a-half years and wrote them off as just'another threat Mr Lange had a duty to' most New Zealanders to give an adequate reply, which he did. — Yours, eta, ~ H. CLEGG. May 4, 1987. Sir, —Sir Geoffrey Howe’s remarks were friendly, reasonableand very convincing, which isobviously why Mr Lange is making such a song and dance about them. It is very frightening to watch him deliberately alienating our traditional ■ and trusted friends. — Yours, eta,

E. MCMILLAN. May 4, 1987.