Letters: Brexit is hastening the EU’s political and fiscal death throes

Britain’s departure from the EU will have a greater impact on the remaining 27 states than on this island nation itself - indeed Brexit is already hastening the EU’s political and fiscal death throes. But the EU needs no help in weakening its last legs. One egregious example of its overweening brinkmanship was its goading of Russia by trying to coax Ukraine into the club. Russia, a country with a GDP the size of Spain’s, got to invade its weaker neighbour and now beats its chest in the Crimea. Good work, Brussels.

The EU has been useful to some. The SNP has cynically used Brexit as only the latest lever with which to prise Scotland in two in the pursuit of its separation mania. (You don’t hear much mention of oil these days.) This is particularly galling to defenders of the United Kingdom as few Scots normally give the EU a second thought, much less claim they like being governed by it. But the chief success of nationalists is their propaganda; they’re on less sure ground with economics.

The British have merely shown the rest of Europe that expensive chains of dependency can be broken by democratic localism, the bane of Brussels' autocratic globalists; and before the usual suspects shout that 62 per cent here voted Remain, the electorate was, as everybody knows, the United Kingdom entire, and only 48 per cent wanted anything to do with the EU.

2017 will be an epochal year. Brexit may mark the beginning of a Renaissance for Britain. The Germans will still be desperate to sell us their cars, the French their wines. Commerce is older than politics. Fasten your seatbelts, as you continue to head for Val d’Isère and Valldemossa and Vilnius and Vienna.

Martin Ketterer,

Sandringham Court, Newton Mearns.

AS a Unionist, I never thought that I would come to the support of the leadership of the SNP.

When Jim Sillars said 'I'd rather abstain on independence than vote Yes to an EU return" because "I do not want to be run by an unelected self-serving elite" (“EU would determine Sillars’ stance on independence”, The Herald, March 8), he did us all a great service. Ever since the EU referendum last June, the Remainers (otherwise known as the “progressive” metropolitan liberal elite, be they in London, Edinburgh or Glasgow) have peddled the calumny that the white working class in northern and midland England and in Wales voted Leave because they were racist and xenophobic. The elite could not, and still cannot, bear the idea that Leave won on the democracy and accountability argument. After all, the working class are there to do as they are told by their betters, are they not? This chippy, respectable and upwardly mobile proletarian from Chesterfield, like so many of his old friends who still live in “the South”, was enraged by the patronising behaviour of the liberal elite.

But there is more to the matter than that. The electorate is canny enough to recognise the difference between a campaign built on facts and one founded on tendentious speculation: “facts” have happened, but “speculations” have not. George Osborne, David Cameron and Nicola Ms Sturgeon based their pro-EU remain campaign not on lies as such, but on crazed “group-think” economic projections. Leave based its campaign on facts about population and migration, on the well-documented idiotic behaviour of Brussels, and on weekly taxpayer contributions to the EU (£350 million gross, £250m net).

Similarly in 2014, Mr Salmond did not “lie' about future North Sea oil revenues as the basis of independence. How could he have known that Saudi Arabia would wreck OPEC, provoke American fracking and thereby undermine the oil price and North Sea revenues? But he did know that the use of sterling would not be acceptable to London. He did know that EU membership was not automatic. And he now knows that the EU and Germany would not cover Scotland's yawning public deficit.

So, finally, I fully support the First Minister: "Sturgeon says referendum in autumn 2018 ‘makes sense’" The Herald, March 9). As I have inferred from the evidence, referendums are won on facts and argument, not on speculation and fantasy. And by late 2018, the facts, in all probability, will be on the side of Brexit and the UK, not in favour of an independent Scotland. The European Union might not even exist.

Richard Mowbray,

14 Ancaster Drive, Glasgow.

ARTICLE 50 is likely to be triggered in the next few weeks and it is time to sketch out the principal tasks to be undertaken for an orderly parting from the EU so that we remain firm friends and supporters of all the European countries and the Union itself.

The first step must be to arrange an extension to the negotiating period as it will be impossible to complete a comprehensive free trade agreement in two years. If the UK tries to do so in that short time it will miss many important issues and frustrate many businesses.

The next task will be to assemble a cadre to put together the elements of an agreement for consideration. As the UK does not have a group of negotiators with the knowledge to engage with those in the EU it should be possible to recruit them by asking trade associations and similar bodies to second some of their people to form a powerful team.

These two tasks are obvious but by far the most important one is to organise a widespread consultation programme involving stakeholders in industry, the professions, unions and academia. The country has been building links and associations with members of the EU for over 40 years and it is important to take into account their experiences and incorporate and coordinate all the elements that will make a new and lasting relationship. Also the programme must include discussions with the individual member states in order to reach workable arrangements.

All this will require considerable effort and an able and experienced leader, which will be wholly justified. The press and the general public will also be able to comment and involve members of Parliament so that they can be able to conduct positive debates leading to a successful conclusion of the most important historical event for many decades.

John J Blanche

Delting, Boquhan, Balfron.

IN your editorial, you complain that Scotland's population is "growing at a slower rate than the UK's as a whole" (“Immigration policy must be devolved”, The Herald, March 11). This, apparently, is a disaster, and so we need more young immigrants to compensate for the age imbalance that would otherwise become more pronounced. However, perfectly obviously the population of Scotland, like any population in a finite space, must at some time stop growing altogether, age imbalance or not. Can anyone explain why now might not be a good time to start adapting to this reality?

Cameron MacKenzie,

White Cottage,

The Wynd, Muthill, Perthshire.