Revisit Brexit

It is striking to note the warning from the inter governmental economic organisation, the OECD, that reversing the Brexit process would boost the UK economy. Accordingto the OECD, a new referendum or a change of government leading to the UK staying within the EU would have a “significant” positive impact on growth.

It also warned“no deal” would see investment seize up, the pound hit new lows and the UK’S credit rating cut.

On the same day it was announced that the UK inflation rate is now at its highest level in five years, one factor beingthe fall in the pound since Brexit, which has seen the costs of imported goods rise. With incomes squeezed tighter and poor economic growthit is no wonder that polling is showing an increasing majority of people now advocating staying in the EU, a clear sign of buyer’s remorse.

Firms based in the UK are slowly but surely looking to implement contingency arrangements as the reality of what Brexit will mean to the UK begins to hit home, espe - ci ally as we head towards a “cliff-edge”B rex it with the likelihood of securing a deal by March 2019 diminishing. The trickle of jobs, such as thosein financial services, will soon become a flood as companies look to safeguard their interests and relocate to the likes of Frankfurt, Dublin and Amsterdam.

There is still time for the UK to step back from the brink, to think again about this decision and look at matters afresh. As people become more aware of the likely impact of Brexit on both them and their families, as the cold reality hits, it is no shame to revisit the debate.

ALEX ORR Leamington Terrace, Edinburgh The position of the UK Government on Brexit is, I think, that it is with drawing from thepolitical union thereby resumingcontrol ofim migration and limiting the jurisdiction of courts outwith the UK, while believing trade and mutually beneficial cooperation in areas such as security and research should continue much as before.

For the EU, on the other hand, ever- closer political union is the prime objective and trade and other contacts are weapons to be used in achieving it.

The questionis, can common ground be found for two such disparate agendas?

S BECK Craigleith Drive, Edinburgh Graham Hay concludes his letter ( 18 October) with the observation that the government, and the whole country, seem to be deeply divided. With the Westminster and Holyrood governments dependent upon support from minor parties to govern, a tiny majority in the EU referendum, and a significant minority in Scotland reluctant to accept the resultof the independence referendum, and civil war in the Conservative and Labour parties, it seems the people and parties of the UK cannot agree on anything.

The negotiations with the EU are obviously the most pressing issue facing the government and the country, but with hard and soft factions fighting bitterlyfor supremacy,the damage being done to the UK by disunity can only get worse. But maybe not. We all accept that the Corbynistas disagree with the Blairites, and Leavers disagree with Remainers, and soft Tories disagree with hard Tories, but why do we assume that these factions never disagree amongst themselves?

There must be millions of Remainers who had misgivings about excessive bureaucracy and the democratic defi- cit, just as there are millions of Leavers who are not the uneducatedracists of popular myth. If one assumes these more nuanced Leavers are unlikely to be in favour of the kind of financially suicidal policies favoured by the hardline Brexit extremists, they would form a majority if combined with the Remainers to demand a reasonable, amicable Brexit. Such a majority wouldgo along way to soothing the anger that stalks the land, and strengthen the prime minister’s resolve to face down the hardliners. GRAHAM M MCLEOD

Muirs, Kinross