Great and good calling for re-run of Brexit poll are harming their reputations

It is not easy to add much to Bill Jamieson’s excellent criticism of the letter from various dignitaries calling for a halt to the Brexit process (perspective, 20 July). Except for one thing. The call itself goes some way towards explaining why so many voters took the opportunity to give a thumbs-down to the political class in the European referendum last year. Most of the signatories appear to think elections and referendums are an inconvenience to be suffered from time to time as they get on with the business of telling voters what really is good for them.

Although I voted Remain in the European referendum I like to think that I am not blind to the EU’S serious deficiencies. Simply to call for the Brexit process to be stopped overlooks two key points. It would probably diminish the standing of the UK on the international stage even more than the current government’s ineptitude is doing; it would imply that there is a feeling here that nothing can be done to change things and we’d better cut our losses before it is too late. Neither is likely to enhance respect for the democratic process.

I’m sure that, as the negotiations go on, crunch points will come on the key areas; citizenship, the “divorce bill”, the question of access to the single market and membership of the Customs Union, security, cross-european links among universities and colleges. Surely the range of expertise among those who signed the letter should have focused on these difficult issues rather then a screech to throw in the towel. The uncertainty over Brexit is posing problems for business, European citizens here and higher education. The way to deal with that is to lobby hard so that the negotiators stay aware of how much is at stake. The signatories have let themselves and their reputations down with such a negative posture.

BOB TAYLOR Shiel Court, Glenrothes

I was struck by Bill Jamieson’s comments that signatories to a letter seeking to stop Brexit are thwarting the democratic process, in turn describing their actions as “arrogant”.

A narrow majority in the UK voted for the UK to leave the EU, but the disastrous consequences are becoming clearer by the day as we face falling living standards, rising inflation, slower growth and lower productivity. Circumstances have changed and it is time to do the patriotic thing, to open up a Uk-wide debate about calling a halt to the Brexit process, affording the opportunity for another referendum.

As the evidence mounts that Brexit is going to be bad news for the economy, Leavers fall back on one main argument: “the people have spoken”. Whatever the economic costs may be, however hard people will be hit, Brexit must progress, they cry.

As the contradictions in the Brexit project become evident, it is increasingly easy to find a response to the democracy argument – what has been promised cannot, and will not, be delivered. The extra £350 million a week for the National Health Service will not be delivered, the vision of a painfree Brexit is an illusion.

The view that once a decision has been taken by referendum, it cannot be revoked, is simply untrue. Brexiteers argue that a new vote on EU membership was justified because the EU has changed fundamentally since 1975. This is a fair argument. But the Brexit that is going to be delivered to the British people is very different from the one that many people were promised.

At a certain stage it will become clear that the Brexiteers have had their chance and failed. Are we brave enough to change our minds before it is too late?

ALEX ORR Leamington Terrace, Edinburgh

Bill Jamieson’s article on Brexit makes the important point that there are now a range of democratic indicators indicating a majority of the UK electorate favour some form of Brexit.

The key question, though, in the current debate is surely what form of Brexit people voted for.

I strongly suspect that this is not the hard Brexit that the UK Government seems to be pursuing at the moment. All leading indicators and balanced analyses point to a hard Brexit being ruinous for Britain’s trade in goods and services and its steady state rate of economic growth.

However, as Bill Jamieson indicates in the final paragraph of his piece, a variant of the Norwegian model, in which the UK is still able to participate in the single market and has some control over immigration, would surely be a better starting point for negotiations than the current position.

Indeed, if the UK government were to move to such a form of Brexit it would immediately give them a more credible bargaining position, cut the hugely damaging uncertainty that currently looms over the British economy and perhaps make it unnecessary for further letter writing on the topic! (PROF) RONALD MACDONALD Adam Smith Business School

University of Glasgow