It is the people who will pay the price for this mess that is Brexit

NOT since 1940 has the country been in such a quandary of indecision as we see today. The 2018 version is of our own making. After many months of fruitless attempts to wrest concessions from the EU, David Cameron returned empty-handed of anything significant, resulting in his honouring of a manifesto pledge to refer continued UK membership to a referendum in 2016. The outcome resulted in his resignation.

The hastily decided election in 2017, contradicting her previous denials to hold one, was expected by her to annihilate the Labour pretender; instead of which her parliamentary majority was annihilated, resulting in a minority government buoyed up by the squalid deal with the Democratic Unionist Party, reportedly worth £1.5 billion for its support. The undermining effect on the integrity and authority of the Prime Minister would not go unnoticed in Brussels; an inauspicious beginning!

There followed the excessively long “will they or won’t they” period of inactivity before the almost choreographed dispatch of the Article 50 letter confirming our intentions.

There followed a succession of soundbites such as “Brexit means Brexit” and “no deal is better than a bad deal”. That none of them was honest or sincere is only too evident in the Withdrawal Agreement, which we are told is the best we will get, and also that no further concessions by the EU can be negotiated.

The alternatives to its acceptance are either no deal or withdrawal of Article 5. Effectively, all that means is that any deal is better than no deal. After more than two years of “negotiation”, the outcome dumped on Parliament under the dire threat that rejection will lead to the reality of “project fear” is a blend of incompetence, betrayal and contempt.

It is not at all surprising that resignations from the negotiating team were common, when it is considered that the ultimate leader was herself prior to 2016 a dedicated and vocal champion of Remain and likely to be uncommitted to the task of quitting advantageously.

It is as easy to cast blame on one individual as it is unfair, taking account of corporate responsibility. Where, then, does the fault fall when the incompetence of the Government is laid bare, as demonstrated by three defeats in Parliament in as many hours?

How can trust be maintained, bearing in mind it will be “the people” who will pay the ultimate price while those responsible emulate David Cameron and walk away?

How this will end is not at all certain but one thing is clear; and that is that, despite denials, much of government activity has been motivated by party interests. The Westminster system permits this and it must change.

J Hamilton,

G/2,1 Jackson Place,

Bearsden,

East Dunbartonshire.

I WAS astonished to read Bill Brown’s proposition that my suggestion that an independent Scotland and RUK “might cooperate in the future” was what was intended by the Union of 1707 (Letters, December 7).

Co-operation is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “the process of working with another company, organisation, or country in order to achieve something”.

In some three months Scotland is to leave the EU. Yet those who voted in Scotland in 2016, did so to Remain by more than three to two. It is all very well, as some do, to say this was a UK vote but it seems an odd view of co-operation to say that, despite voting to Remain, Scotland is obliged to leave the EU. If it is an obligation consequent on our membership of the Union, can we really believe the Union is based on co-operation or values it at all highly?

Consent is core to the Sewel Convention, which requires that, if the UK Parliament wishes to legislate on a matter within the Scottish Parliament’s devolved competence, Westminster would “not normally” do so without our Parliament’s consent. “Co-operation” is clearly core to this.

However, this part of the Scotland Act has been amended this year so that there is “a consent decision” by our Parliament when it does agree to Westminster’s proposal, but also when it decides “not to agree” to consent, or agrees

“to refuse to consent”.

It is very difficult to see what connection this has to “co-operation”. My intention was to suggest that two independent states could decide to co-operate on matters of mutual interest.

If Mr Brown considers that being forced to leave the EU, despite our vote in 2016, and that our Parliament’s consent to Westminster legislation on a devolved matter, can be assumed even when it “decides not to agree”, or “agrees to refuse to consent” as instances of “cooperation” in the current Union, then it is less surprising that he considers “the marriage remains in robust good health”.

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue,

Dumbarton.

DR RM Morris (Letters, December 7) describes the original Brexit vote as merely “advisory” before demanding another to see if the public have changed its minds.

Let us be crystal clear about this: the £147 million taxpayer costing EU referendum was a cynical ploy to destroy Ukip so its votes would “naturally” gravitate to the Conservatives: little to do with “the will of the people” a metropolitan class had ceased to listen to since the days of Margaret Thatcher.

Smug pseudo-left liberals approved because getting rid of Ukip was “a good thing”; that the underlying issues creating it would remain was simply the lower order’s tough luck.

In the subsequent, post-brexit vote General Election a year later, all parties condemned Ukip as the greatest evil since Lord Voldemort on live TV.

Jeremy Corbyn wrong-footed the lot, saying he understood why people voted Brexit and Ukip, particularly over unrestricted EU immigration for the enrichment of a few at the expense of the many.

Days later, bye bye Ukip, hello the man meant who was to be leading Labour to its worst ever electoral defeat instead finishing 2,227 votes short of the keys to Number 10. Coincidence? Hardly!

There have been three full-scale electoral shocks in as many recent years: Brexit, the extermination of Scottish Labour and Britain being a hair’s breadth away from a socialist government.

These are all overdue reminders the “revolting” commoners have a historical habit of turning that adjective into a verb.

Yet still remains the mantra of voters “wickedness” for having the colossal gall at the polling booth to disobey their “betters” in a nation where there is £6 trillion in private wealth yet 130 000 children are homeless.

Mark Boyle,

15 Linn Park Gardens,

Johnstone,

Renfrewshire.

● Have your say:

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