Some of the opinions expressed by Peter Brooks in your report "EU debate risks becoming `a dialogue of the deaf`" (March 27) were well worth knowing. But who are really the deaf - those in favour of Malta becoming a member of the European Union or those against?

Experience has amply shown that the vagaries of history can take many forms. For instance, people who are old enough will remember seeing a Nationalist prime minister joyously waving the document proclaiming Malta`s nationhood and political independence. While the same old people are now sadly witnessing another Nationalist prime minister ready and willing to give up that same nationhood and political independence for which our fore fathers fought so much for ages.

"In Malta", Mr Brooks said, like many other foreign Euro-propogandists before him, "you have a situation not unlike that in the UK where there is no middle ground in the EU debate - you`re either politically for, or politically against". This debate, be it noted, is still going on after more than 30 years of membership!

So we are more than in good company. But our case, it is true, is vastly different than the UK`s. A thorough social, economic and political analysis of what EU membership implies for our mini-state would no doubt reveal serious disadvantages. Even the purblind would see the light if provided with all information, including what is hidden, and also the folly of it all.

Mr Brooks says it takes "good public information about the EU... to make educated judgments about membership". And to make his point he cites the UK as an example by saying - wonder of wonders - "the country`s accession to the Common Market was shrouded in misinformation and mystery at the political level" (my emphasis). This remarkable revelation, coming from a public information expert, serves as a timely warning to those who blindly accept EU membership.

By "shrouded misinformation and mystery at the political level" Mr Brooks meant how the British parliament was misled by a Conservative government which ignored the advice of a Lord Chancellor, the highest legal authority in the land, on the constitutional implications of the Treaty of Rome.

And years later, was not Mrs Thatcher deceived by her Chancellor of the Exchequer and the foreign secretary about the "Single Market" legislation? Was she not also decieved by another Chancellor of the Excequer about the exchange rate mechanism?

Perhaps the ultimate hypocrisy was that of Douglas Hurd who, as foreign secretary, signed the Maastricht Treaty on Economic and Monetary Union and later, having left office, declared "I have never been an advocate of the single European currency."

This brief historical reference to the UK should serve as an eye-opener of how people in Malta can easily be hoodwindked by the same methods of deceit.

Finally, Mr Brooks gives good advice to our Europhiles that can hardly be improved upon. It is this: "It is your choice, do it on the basis of a real understanding of the odds, not on the basis of pie-in-the-sky or mythology" (my emphases).