Nothing decided

Richard Dingwall-smith is misleading (Letters, 27 April). The UK did not “finalise an agreement on 14 November”, the UK Government did. Finalisation requires approval by Parliament.

On the mantra “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” he says that the point of full agreement came “last November”. Not so – the EU’S Article 50 requires one agreement covering both withdraw ability al and our future relationship. The latter has not yet been negotiated, but is merely set out in the wish-lists of each party in the so-called political declaration.

One of Theresa May’s many errors was to overrule her Brexit ministers and agree to that effective change to Article 50. It conflicts with the above mantra and with common sense, since it is clear, as the exaggerated Northern Ireland border “problem” shows, that the border’s status is closely linked to our future relationship.

Theeu’ s insistence on agreeing a solution to the border but without agreeing the future relationship, also conceded by Mrs May, not surprisingly prevented agreement on the wording and spirit of Article 50 in full, within the two-year period. She also capitulated on their £39 billion demand – for what?

JOHN BIRKETT

Horseleys Park, St Andrews

In the present Brexit debate, both the SNP and the Lib Dems have maintained their total adoration of Brussels-based hegemony at the expense of genuine democracy, but that is their business.

Brian Monteith (Perspective, 29 April) expresses the frustration amongst those of us who, whether or not they voted for Brexit, are horrified that a democratic decision has been ignored by politicians who “have lied persistently”.

Their parties will suffer accordingly in the English council election and the EU election.

Perhaps the best way to explain the current position is to ask anyone – and I do mean anyone, other than Irish nationalists – who would have voted for Northern Ireland to be treated differently from the rest of the UK, essentially splitting the nation in two, on either side of the Irish Sea?

Then we should ask who would want to be subject to the same rules and regulations emanating from Brussels – and paying enormous sums of money for the privilege – without any say whatsoever in formulating or opposing that legislation, whilst having no

to make trade treaties with the rest of the world? No one, that’s who.

The Government try to claim that they aim to reach a “compromise” over Brexit with Labour. That is like the compromise over being pregnant or not pregnant. Like Brexit, you cannot be halfpregnant.

We must either stay in the EU and have a say, or be free of them. There is no halfway house. It is enormously disappointing that even Ruth Davidson cannot understand that.

ANDREW HN GRAY

Craiglea Drive, Edinburgh