Brexit Mayhem

Reading between the lines, Theresa May is to make a speechinflorenceonthebrexitsituation,orisitbrexitfailure or disaster pending or what?

This speech has been known about for several weeks and speculation is rife. What is there to say that cannot be agreed by the Cabinet and taken back to Brussels? Why the big build up?

Then we hear that the Cabinet will meet about 24 hours before the event to have input. Obviously there is not really much substance to the speech yet.

So has Theresa May been ploughing a lone furrow? Are there, have there ever been any firm positions on anything at the discussions to date in Brussels or has No 10 under David Davis been treading water?

Whythebigspeechnowfrom a Continental city? Why not at Parliament?oristheresamay feart she might be heckled by her own side?

She displayed a reluctance to engage here during the last election where she failed to demonstrate these strong and stable qualities she claimed she possessed. She, in effect, hid behind robotic phrases.

Big speeches never achieve much. The problem with the UK team in Brexit is they have lacked substance and detail. Big speeches never go on to minutiae either. The histrionics and sound bites always leave questions unanswered.

The Brexit delusion within the May lame duck government is that it has no real clout, no veto and no real say. Out means Out and it can only ask to be heard. Yet, it has had nothing specific to offer quid pro quo in its claims to have the same deal it had as a member! That circle cannot be squared. The EU has made that clear.

No 10’s only real route from within its Brexit parameters is to leave with no deal and face the known and unknown consequences.

The Tory party and its propagandists in sections of the media have really created this mayhem in waiting.

JOHN EDGAR Merrygreen Place, Stewarton progress and a militarised law and order.

Some of the problems with which she is grappling have worldwide significance. They are the growth of terrorism, the persecution of minorities, religious tensions, poverty and hunger. She probably knows that too liberal a line on all these could mean the end of any democratic advance in Myanmar and perhaps even her own freedom.

Althoughtherehasbeencondemnation from the United Nations about her approach, I havetosaytheuseofwordslike ‘genocide’, ‘ethnic cleansing’ and ‘holocaust’ are unhelpful.

The international community should take her up on an offer to look much more closely at what has actually happened in Rakhine. If that can be achieved we might be able to look forward to a solution with theunactingasapeacebroker rather than a hindrance in that troubled part of Asia

BOB TAYLOR Shiel Court, Glenrothes