Corbyn’s backing for second referendum more to do with party damage control

Jeremy Corbyn’s change of heart over a second Brexit referendum is obviously designed to stop further damaging loss of Labour MPS (Scotsman report, 26 February).

Brexit seems to have become like a game of “musical chairs”. Party factional advantage is being sought at every move rather than actually finding a reasonable solution that takes into consideration the publicly expressed desire to leave the EU but with as little acrimony as possible.

We seem to have taken our eye off the position of the chair, which is actually being moved into more and more impossible to reach positions.

The EU is the key to Brexit, not internal UK political disputes. The EU simply want to make that last chair vanish, leaving us with nowhere else to go but back to the beginning again. They are spoiling the party with the help of some politicians here.

(DR) GERALD EDWARDS Broom Road, Glasgow

I see that we are offered a false dichotomy of “deal or no-deal” as the latest indicator of lowlevel thinking. We know that both options are deals and merely change the premises for the arguments.

Both call for strategy and for tactical skills in coping with the consequences of being affected by the influences of the US, China and the EU as they arise unilaterally or multilaterally through the World Trade Organisation (WTO) or Nato.

I hope that Ministers and their advisers look back to our experience of entry to the EEC. The Six that we joined was a simpler organisation but it took a decade of preparation (including a rejection) to do so.

Even after doing so, there were considerable subsequent negotiations. Our re-configured tariff wall and making EEC regulations fit the reality of the industries and trade of the UK, Denmark and Ireland were two such elements.

They took and were sensibly given much time and thought in the 1970s. These facts make the current schedule look a bit ambitious, to say the least.

If they are dusting off the old files they may care to look at the “economic war” waged between De Valera’s Ireland and the UK in the 30s and 40s. It produced no positive results and re-inforced political difficulties then and thereafter.

L.V. MCEWAN St Albans Road, Edinburgh

Many will suspect that Jeremy Corbyn’s change of heart on a further EU referendum is purely down to the fact that support for Labour has slumped in the polls, and as a lifelong Brexiteer who called for Article 50 to be triggered the day after the referendum it is highly unlikely that he will campaign with any vigour for Remain in a future vote.

However, several questions need to be answered before another referendum is held.

Will all those born in Europe who live and pay taxes in the UK get a vote? If not, why should those born outside Scotland get a vote in any future independence referendum?

What happens if Scotland votes Remain but is again outvoted by the rest of the UK?

Will those democrats keen on a further European Union referendum demand a new “People’s Vote” on independence due to changed circumstances and the false prospectus promoted by the No side in 2014?

MARY THOMAS Watson Crescent, Edinburgh

William Loneskie in his letter of 25 February calls in the Economists for Free Trade to justify his hard stance on a nodeal Brexit. That proves next to nothing, as I could produce the names of distinguished economists and academics who disagree with these zealous free-marketeers.

In fact, Mr Loneskie’s letter convinces me that I have been right to suspect that the Hard Brexit Project is little more than a plot to take turbocharged capitalism to frighteningly destructive extremes.

He accuses the EU of “not seeking an outcome which is mutually beneficial”. Why should it? The EU’S negotiators have a duty to protect the interests of the remaining member states, especially Ireland and to protect the single market and the customs union based as they are on the founding principles of the EU. Whereas Mr Loneskie abhors its regulations, the purposes of which are to protect our environment, health and working conditions, I have no desire whatsoever to live in the regulation-free anarchy to which he looks forward with such gleeful anticipation.

JOHN MILNE Ardgowan Drive, Uddingston

Those arguing loudest for a People’s Vote on Brexit want to use it either to Remain in the EU, or in the case of the SNP, as a stepping-stone to leave the UK.

But if the first fails and the second succeeds, Scotland ends up stranded outside both the EU and the UK, with the SNP trying to justify the austerity needed to meet EU joining criteria. Independence at any cost is in danger of leaving Scotland cast adrift with no lifeboat in sight.

KEITH HOWELL West Linton, Peeblesshire