No-deal Brexit would be a boost for democracy and transparency

THERE is a case for a no-deal Brexit. based on three fundamental notions: democracy, transparency and freedom. The EU is not democratic and the idea that it could be reformed if Britain fought for change from the inside is ludicrous.

Consider first the European Parliament, with its hundreds of MEPS elected by voters in member nations, who in turn vote for the President of the Commission. Surely it is democratic? It is a parliament, but not as we know it. It is not a legislature; it has no power either to propose or pass laws. Unlike the parliaments of European nations it does not elect a government; it doesn’t even have the power to choose where it sits. It can vote for the President of the Commission, and, while it has the power to remove the commissioners, it never has. Real power emanates via bureaucratic diktat and secret diplomatic deals.

Consider next the Committee of Permanent Representatives (Coreper). It does the core of the EU’S business via unelected senior national officials and handles 90 per cent of EU legislation. Its proceedings are treated as state secrets, and its documents usually classed as “non-papers” (meaning they cannot be accessed by the press or the public). It does the spadework in preparation for the regular meetings of the council of the EU. Much of this has already been decided in the council’s committees and working groups, all of which operate in secret.

Third, the European Council, the big showcase for the EU. Surely transparent? No. It brings together the various heads of government and state behind closed doors. There is no public record of what is said, simply a summit communique prepared by Coreper and known as Council Conclusions. These bind governments to what has been agreed, regardless of domestic politics or elections between meetings and form a compact between leaders that overrides the relationship between voters and their governments. In the process of bringing together the elected heads of government the European Council transforms them. They cease to be representatives of nation states accountable to their electorates and become a new political entity – nation states of the EU – which drawstheir authority from membership of the union and a seat at the top table.

Finally, what of the European Commission, the only body that can propose legislation. Surely democratic? No. This is an un-elected executive which, in consultation with an army of unelected officials, proposes and polices thousands of EU rules and regulations.

The effect of this triple axis is to short-circuit national legislatures that are confronted with a mass of decisions over which they lack any oversight. Major questions that affect domestic politics become treated as ‘’technical matters’’ to be sorted and filed away in committees and secret diplomatic summits rather than political issues to be debated and decided in national parliaments. Doug Clark,

6 Muir Wood Grove,

Currie, Midlothian.

IAN Lakin (Letters, February 26) identifies as a root cause of Brexit the imbalance of trade with the EU, compared to the UK’S equality of trade with the rest of the world.

His answer is to leave the EU because we can’t compete with it. That’s a bit like a struggling football team deciding to play in a lower division because it’s unable to compete with the better sides in its own league. Forty years ago, the UK Government decided that manufacturing and trade in goods was finished as an economic model and service industries (particularly based in the city of London) were the way forward. Other more enlightened nations, Germany and France for example, decided that improved productivity and a mixed economy were the way forward; they were right and we were wrong.

Ian Lakin’s answer is to run away from the struggle with Europe and try to find some softer competition with those countries we dominated through Empire 100 years ago. The UK will find that those nations ( India, Australia and Canada among them) have learned the game and will be tough competition.the grass is not always greener on the other side.

John Jamieson,

60 Craigie Road, Ayr.

AS MPS continue to debate Brexit, we urge that our views are heard. We are a group of children and young people who have been working to identify how Brexit could impact on our lives. We’ve put forward proposals for decision makers that we think would give the best results for children and young people. We have launched a report, Listen To Us, with full recommendations. It’s time for those in power to take these forward.

We will inherit Brexit’s full consequences. Yet information provided to young people about what Brexit will mean has been minimal. Our right to have our voices heard has been largely ignored. We call on politicians to consider the impact their decisions have on our lives. We urge them to learn from our views. We call on politicians to take forward our recommendations on Erasmus+, EU funding, travel and workers’ rights. We ask all politicians to Listen To Us, as they should have from the start of the Brexit process.

Malika Afif ; James Anderson; Jack Bell; Julia Calabrese; Oscar Cobham; Collingridge Watt; Kimberley Henry; Calum Heron; Hope Laing; Joel Meekison; Olivia Morgan; Jack Norquoy, Member of the Scottish Youth Parliament (MSYP); Bailey Lee Robb (MSYP); Soroush Uthmani; Nell Westbrook; Beccie White; Rose Whitford,

9 Haymarket Terrace, Edinburgh.

● Have your say:

The Editor, The Herald, 200 Renfield Street, Glasgow G2 3QB; e-mail: letters@theherald.co.uk

THOSE calling for a “People’s Vote” on Brexit are critically divided over the question that should be posed, as well as its underlying purpose. Is it to be Theresa May’s deal or Remain in the EU? Or Theresa May’s deal or a no-deal exit? Or is it to be a repeat of the 2016 question, with a second clarifying what kind of Brexit is to be pursued if Leave is preferred by the majority? The aim of a second vote on the EU also varies, from those hoping to overturn the 2016 result, through to those like the SNP who want to undermine the UK with a different end game in mind.

Are those proposing a “People’s Vote” certain they will not simply compound and extend the uncertainty we are already facing? Keith Howell,

White Moss, West Linton, Peeblesshire.

BREXIT will bring many changes and I foresee the addition of “ergybergy” as a refinement of “argybargy” to the 2019 edition of Collins English Dictionary.

Argy-bargy – noun. origin: British, 19th century. Noisy arguing, wrangling. (Originally Scots rhyming jingle based on “argue.”)

Ergy-bergy – noun. origin: British, 21st century. Noisy arguing, wrangling – based on a divisive political project of unquantified risk. (Derived: ERG – pro-brexit European Research Group, 1993.)

R Russell Smith,

96 Milton Road, Kilbirnie.