There's no defence for boris's evasions, says ann widdecombe

It is Nato which has kept the peace in Europe since 1945 and without which there would have been no deterrent to the mighty Soviet empire from invading the West any time it chose. In a

choice between accepting command and control from the EU or continuing as we are with Nato, we must surely select the latter with its vast American nuclear arsenal but in which nations still

have sovereign rights over their own defence procurement. By contrast Ursula von der Leyen has said in terms that she wants a single defence contractor. Where the heck would that leave our

own defence industries? It would be ludicrous to escape the tentacles of the EU only to find ourselves under its strategic command in matters military, daft to be free of its stranglehold on

state aid only to be told that our defence industries cannot bid. No man can serve two masters and the choice is simple: the EU superstate or the voluntary, nation-respecting Nato. So why

is Boris so silent on the issue? Why does Ben Wallace not give clear answers? Why does the UK Government seem to want to brush it all under the carpet? We are entitled to a straight answer

to a straight question: now we have left the EU will the Prime Minister guarantee that we will also leave the European Defence Union? None of that rules out military co-operation with our

European neighbours as they are also members of Nato which organises joint exercises and strategy development. So let us ask a supplementary question: what can the EDU do that Nato cannot?

There is no compulsion under any current agreement to commit ourselves to the EDU so why is Boris so evasive?