THE direction of Brexit will be resolved before Christmas. Either the talks will collapse or Theresa May will sell us out totally, and thereby destroy herself and the Conservative Party (“Davidson piles pressure on May over Brexit”, The Herald, December 5). But thanks to Arlene Foster and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), the former seems more likely.
On the three major issues that dominate the Brexit negotiations, the deceit and duplicity of the Remainers becomes ever more evident. The largely leftist and Remain elite and networkers subscribe to what they believe to be the morally superior position of Europeanism: that only the EU has saved us from war and from barbarism (especially that displayed by the ignorant, xenophobic and racist working class).
Left to themselves, the British would degenerate into “uncivilised” , as promoted by the political Right. The elites and their hangers-on hate the nation-states (as compared with “Europe”) because they get in the way of the “grand project” of political union. The fact that most voters, not being on the gravy train, do not identify with Europe but instead with people of the same language, institutions and culture as themselves, is, in the opinion of Remainers, their moral failure and must be corrected.
On the big three issues disputed by the EU, the Remainers are getting ever closer to destroying the UK. The DUP is qualified by history to recognise this. Only five per cent of Ulster’s GDP is traded with the Republic of Ireland and most of the rest is with the UK. Why would it make any sense for the economic and political border to shift from where it is? The head of HM Revenue and Customs says that a “hard border” would not be the result of Ulster continuing within the regulatory, trade and customs framework of the UK.
Why would an independent UK submit to the legal hegemony of the European Court of Justice? But this is what the Remainers want. The United States does not. And I do not believe that, if voters here were ever to vote for independence, they would accept that the Supreme Court in London would have any role in an independent Scotland to defend the rights of people like me; nor should they and it.
Finally, there is the money. In 44 years the UK has made a net contribution of around £400 billion to the EU. Mrs May, under pressure from the Remainers, now proposes to hand over another £50bn. Has she and have they completely lost the plot? Why should we fund future projects in the EU that would not benefit us? It is time that this Remainer-instigated Brussels farce was ended. We should withdraw from negotiations and proceed on World Trade Organisation terms. How could that damage Mrs May, the Conservative Party and the UK any more than the present farrago is likely to do? Indeed, she would be more likely to see off Jeremy Corbyn.
Richard Mowbray, 14, Ancaster Drive, Glasgow.
ANYONE with even a superficial knowledge of life in Ireland knows that the DUP would be committing suicide to agree to separation from the UK. Spending as I do a considerable amount of time in Donegal a few short miles from the border, I hate to think what will happen to the peace process if Irish political parties who cannot even agree how to work together to create a functioning Assembly have a solution that is not universally acceptable imposed on them.
Likewise if all the information leaking out regarding the negative financial ramifications accompanying Brexit and dire predictions of stagnant future UK productivity had been available at the time I doubt if the Leave option would have received the slender majority it gained in the referendum.
Even London and the financial sector that has kept the economy afloat for decades thinks Brexit is a bad idea yet internal party politics within the Westminster bubble are set to cripple the country and possibly tear the Union apart.
We know from past performance that even heart-rending speeches on poverty by the likes of Frank Field in the Commons this week to the few MPs who could be bothered to turn up will result in absolutely nothing happening to improve the circumstances of those outside the bubble.
We constantly hear the mantra “the will of the British people” used to justify the pursuit of Brexit but “the people” often make mistakes or change their minds and that is why we have regular general elections. Sometimes it is hard and takes guts to admit you took the wrong turning but to change direction is only common sense if you can see the cliff-edge rapidly approaching.
That can only happen if you dump your inflated ego and look outside the bubble.
David J Crawford, 85 Whittingehame Court, 1300 Great Western Road, Glasgow.
IT is not surprising that Scotland in Union does not want to talk about Brexit (“Pro-Union campaign torn apart in Brexit meltdown”, The Herald, December 7).
They will be acutely aware that Brexit,in reality, represents the gradual emergence of English nationalism.
The key support for leaving the European Union comes from England-outside-London.
This vast area, covering 46 million people, voted 55.4 per cent Leave and 44.6 Remain – a decisive majority.
English nationalism has been quietly emerging. Increasingly, more English people state they are “English” rather than “British” in polls such as the national identity question in the 2011 UK Census.
The St George’s Cross is increasingly more popular than the Union flag.
London voted 59.9 per cent Remain but it is an international city, becoming detached from England.
Three million of its 8.5 million citizens are foreign-born. On the edge of the Union, the vote was to Remain (62 per cent in Scotland and 55.8 per cent in Northern Ireland).
England’s Tories are already aware of growing English nationalism.
That is why they pushed for “English votes for English laws” on the very morning after the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum result.
They also played to English nationalism with their 2015 general election posters depicting then Labour leader Ed Miliband in Alex Salmond’s pocket.
It is embarrassing for Scotland in Union to admit that it is essentially asking Scots to be led by the wishes of English nationalism.
Tom Johnston, 5 Burn View, Cumbernauld.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel