But in the longer term none of this confusion helps Britain or Europe. It certainly does not make the posture of the Major administration – lounging back, arms folded, one eyebrow raised over a supercilious, quizzical smile – a wise one. France is undergoing severe economic pain, and has a surging nationalist right. In Germany, antagonism between those politicians and bankers who resent the loss of the mark, and Chancellor Kohl, is coming increasingly into the open.More generally, there is something surreal about European politics at the moment, as hard-edged, detailed plans for the new currency are methodically hammered out at the technical level, while the really big political questions surrounding them are brushed aside as too embarrassing or hard to discuss.Tactically, this will further help Major and the Conservatives because as the hubbub grows, voters will begin to notice and take fright. We are going to hear more, over the next year or so, about the anger of the Italians, Belgians and others about being excluded from the new single currency zone by the Germans; this row cannot be avoided. And the bigger answer is that it is not.What Majorca underlined is that the road to monetary union is going to be a rocky and dangerous passage – for all Europeans, not merely head- scratching islanders. Because the serious people in the party understand this, there will be populist eruptions at the conference, but probably not a full-scale attack by the Tory right.Monetary union, though, is high politics.

And the bigger question is whether the Conservatives’ decision to have no view about monetary union is right for the country and the EU. This is partly thanks to Major’s gamble when he resigned and forced a leadership contest earlier in the year; by defeating his enemies in open combat he has ensured that the party’s European policy is now set in stone until 1997. They imply that, without it, Europe is bound to disintegrate into a malign nationalistic competition and even war.So it’s a choice between war in Europe or war in Europe, then? Confronted by this apocalyptic screeching from both corners as the Maastricht timetable looks ever tighter, voters are likely to find Major’s still small voice of calm, with all its vagueness and modesty, rather reassuring.Reports of a rapprochement with the Tory Euro-rebels seem premature, but for the first time there is a real prospect of the Conservatives going into the next election without gaping splits on Europe. He remains a leader on the sidelines of the argument, calmly pointing out flaws, mildly raising questions, without a strategy or answer of his own.

But his very mildness may help to rebuild his reputation in British politics at a time when the passionate enemies and supporters of monetary union are both starting to sound like deranged Old Testament demagogues.
Bernard Connolly, the European Commission official who recently attacked EMU in his book The Rotten Heart of Europe, damaged a serious argument by retreating into paranoiac witterings about a new European Stalinism of evil conspiracies and savage repression, before warning of war in Europe if the single currency is made But the EMU enthusiasts are equally culpable. And for once Mr Major was asking the right questions rather than dodging them. The Majorca summit exposed, rather brutally, the unanswered political questions that surround the single currency. Europe’s Doubting John, the British Prime Minister who, confronted with the great matter of monetary union, answers “dunno”, has had a good few days. I wonder what conclusions could be drawn and put into print about other nationalities based on anecdotes from friends.Yours faithfully,Robyn WillisLondon, W222 September.

I am left wondering just who is ignorant with remarks such as “Australians have a headstart” in the unreconstructed man stakes, or that travelling with Australian men is like travelling with “a herd of animals”. From Mrs Robyn Willis

Sir: In reference to Sophie Constanti’s review of Dein Perry’s Tap Dogs, how convenient it must have been to link her negative opinion of the show to her view of Australian men (22 September).
As an Australian recently arrived in your country, I was warned before leaving home of an attitude towards Australians as unsophisticated and ignorant. This insurance is important for maintaining the stability, and hence prosperity, of the territory.In view of possible Chinese repression in Hong Kong after July 1997, a British government which ignores the plight of its Hong Kong British subjects is simply being irresponsible.Yours sincerely,Lin LiGlasgow24 September. Many of them, in fact, have sought, or have even acquired, citizenship status in other countries, such as Canada or Australia; if they had to leave Hong Kong for any political reason, they would rather go to these countries than to the UK.Although Britain is not a popular migration destination for Hong Kong people, full British citizenship status is nonetheless useful in serving as an “insurance” for them, as it will give Hong Kong people the confidence to stay and work there. Concern about racial discrimination, considered to be prominent in Britain, particularly as reflected in the debate over the citizenship rights of Hong Kong BDTCs, further reduces Britain’s desirability as a place of residence.Indeed, among the 50,000 heads of household who have been granted British right of abode under the British Nationality Selection Scheme, few intend to move to Britain. Culturally, the overwhelming majority of Hong Kong BDTCs are Chinese, many of whom find British culture alienating. As recent research has revealed, Britain is not, and probably will not be in the foreseeable future, a popular migration destination for Hong Kong Chinese.Economically, Hong Kong people feel that they have more opportunities in the Far East than elsewhere.

Britain is seen as highly unattractive because of its recent economic depression. From Mr Lin Li

Sir: Being a Hong Kong Chinese who has settled in the United Kingdom, I applaud Chris Patten’s suggestion that Hong Kong British Dependent Territories Citizens (BDTCs) should be given right of abode in this country.
The fear of many Conservative politicians that this will lead to a mass influx from Hong Kong and thereby pose a danger to Britain’s social stability is unfounded. Our children deserve the protection of such regulations and, instead of abandoning them, the resources should be provided to bring school premises up to standard.Yours sincerely,Margaret Tulloch Executive Secretary Campaign for State Education; John Andrews General Secretary, Professional Association of Teachers; Andy Dorn Co-worker, Advisory Centre of Education; Simon Goodenough Chair, National Governors’ Council; Nigel de Gruchy General Secretary, National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers; David Hart General Secretary, National Association of Headteachers; Anne Hollinger Member, Management Committee Parents in Partnership; Vicky Hurst Chair, Nursery Education Liaison Group; Alan Jinkinson General Secretary, Unison; Margaret Morrissey Public Relations Officer, National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations; Doug McAvoy General Secretary, National Union of Teachers; Alan Parker Education Officer, Association of Metropolitan Authorities; David Smith Chair, Action on Governors’ Information and Training; Peter Smith General Secretary, Association of Teachers and Lecturers; Hadrian Southern Chair, National Association of Governors and Managers; John Sutton General Secretary, Secondary Heads AssociationCampaign for State EducationLondon, SW2025 September. The review, it was said then, would bein light of changes in educational practice over the last 10 years, to assess the implications for school premises of the National Curriculum over the next 10 years, to examine the legal requirements in the context of delegation to schools of responsibility for repairs and maintenance and to ensure that schools are able to make better use of school grounds and the overall school environment.The reason the present Secretary believes that these minimum space provisions are no longer necessary is said to be becauseschools enjoy much greater management freedoms than they did when the last version of the Regulations was introduced and that schools and local education authorities should have greater freedom to manage school buildings and land in the interests of pupils and in the light of the facilities available.We do not believe that these reasons provide sufficient evidence to show that the removal of these statutory requirements is in the interests of pupils. In October 1990, the then Secretary of State extended the transitional period for compliance for five years so that a review could take place. From Ms Margaret Tulloch and others

Sir: As organisations concerned with the quality of education of our children, we have major reservations about a recently announced Government intention to put before Parliament revised Education (School Premises) Regulations, including a proposal to remove the minimum space allocation per pupil for teaching and recreation.
The Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981 were due to come into force in 1991, by which time resources should have been provided to bring schools up to the standard of these regulations.