‘Nodeal’looms

The clamour for a second referendum which appears to grow by the day was given a further boost by former Prime Minister John Major’s intervention over the weekend.

The main reasons given for another “people’s vote” range from people did not know what they were voting for to they were mislead by Brexiteers or the cost of a “no deal” would be too great and so on. However, in my book Remainers like me lost the vote and have to accept the democratic vote of the people – period.

The only justification for another vote to remain a full member of the EU would be for the EU to make a material change to one or more of the four freedoms – especially free movement of labour and not whether we don’t like the terms negotiated.

The tragedy in all this kerfuffle is that the EU will have to modify its stance on free movement sooner rather than later, due to pressure from Italy, Hungry, Poland and particularly Switzerland, which has recently moved closer to a referendum to tear up its agreement on labour.

If only Angela Merkel had listened to David Cameron and had given him some “wriggle room” on immigration rather than ignore the legitimate concerns about the impact of a net 240,000 people (the population of Aberdeen and shire) arriving in the UK every

year during the past eight years. With Fortress Europe showing no signs of negotiating, small wonder the chances of a “no deal” has become more likely.

IAN LAKIN

Murtle Den Road, Milltimber

What may happen in the UK Supreme Court in the case concerning Brexit remains to be seen (“Scots Brexit battle with UK...”, The Scotsman, 20 July).

The Treaty of Union of 1707 would have been unlikely to be approved by the Scots Parliament of that time without guarantees concerning the Church of Scotland and Scottish law. Arguably there have been many breaches of the treaty since, which may be thought to render it invalid.

Of particular interest now, the existence of a UK Supreme Court is certainly contrary to the spirit and arguably contrary to the letter of the 1707 treaty and acts. The text of the Acts refers to it as a treaty. Article XIX of the treaty contains the words “...that no causes in Scotland be cognizable by the Courts of Chancery... or any other Court in Westminster Hall”.

Possibly the UK Supreme Court should be asked to rule on whether it should exist ?

DAVID STEVENSON

Blacket Place, Edinburgh