THE “victory” in the House of Commons for Parliament to accept or reject the future negotiated deal on transition with Brussels is to be welcomed, when one is resisting draconian No10 powers in the Great Reform Bill (“May humiliated as rebel Tories inflict Brexit defeat”, The Herald, December 14).

But the EU, if any future deal negotiated between the Brexit team and the EU team is rejected by the Commons after the negotiation, may not be agreeable to renegotiation. Already, comments are being made to this effect in Brussels. If the UK Tory Government cannot guarantee that its members cannot back it, then that is the UK problem to fix beforehand and put its house in order.

It is the same with the date of leaving, which is fixed at two years after Article 50. Even if Parliament wants to “overturn ” that next week in an amendment, it is not binding on the EU.

The interim period about to be negotiated must be completed by October 2018 to enable the 27 EU national parliaments and the EU Parliament to deliberate on it.

That timescale has been set by the EU, which is the dominant player in this Brexit saga, not the UK Parliament or Government.

The symbolic internal victory is for parliamentarians in London, underscoring Theresa May’s split party, but the EU will decide the ultimate shape of the post- Brexit relationship.

John Edgar,

4 Merrygreen Place,

Stewarton.

I WAS delighted that a handful of backbench Tory MPs had the courage to defy their whips and vote against their government’s disgraceful attempt to deny MPs a definitive vote on the final negotiated Brexit settlement. It is hard to believe that any government would seek to avoid a parliamentary vote on a matter of such major importance to the nation, and they fully deserved “a bloody nose”.

When watching these events unfold, I was struck once again how by ridiculously inefficient the centuries-old voting system is in the House of Commons. A couple of hundred MPs have to get up and leave the chamber, while hundreds more are summoned from the bars and dining rooms (or perhaps even their offices) to wander away to the voting lobbies, where they queue up to have their names ticked off on sheets of paper.

The votes then have to be added up by tellers and collated before the final result is ready to be announced to the House.

The whole process takes between 15 and 20 minutes and, on Wednesday, there were four separate votes one after another; what a waste of time.

With modern press-button equipment, or even the use of mobile phones (which they all seem to have in the chamber), the process could be over in a couple of minutes.

Much time in debates is also wasted by having to refer to another MP as “the honourable member” for some long-titled constituency. The Speaker is entitled to use ordinary first names and surnames, so why not all other MPs when making a speech? The Mother of Parliaments is sadly showing her age, and methinks it is time for a good shake-up.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court,

Glasgow.

BREXIT Minister Mike Russell again displays his ability to wring the maximum amount of grievance out of any exchange of views with the UK Government (Letters, December 14). His latest bout of mock outrage relates to just how many of the 111 powers returning to the UK under Brexit will come directly to Scotland, rather than via Westminster to enable appropriate UK-wide frameworks to be put

in place.

This would all be a non-issue if the UK Government could trust the SNP to act in the interests of the UK as a whole on these matters.

Instead, Mr Russell and his First Minister have made clear from the moment of the EU referendum result that the SNP will use Brexit to try to undermine the UK in any way it can.

While we cannot know exactly what has been said in the discussions with the UK Government, it appears Scottish Secretary David Mundell has suggested numbers of powers could indeed come direct to Scotland, presumably because they could not readily be used against the interests of the UK single market, while others would have to be developed into UK frameworks first.

Mr Russell equally appears to agree with that; he just wants the Scottish Government to have the whip hand over agreeing the frameworks, effectively holding the UK Government to ransom on sector after sector in which it is critical that the UK single market is protected.

Regardless of the outcome, the one thing that is certain is that the SNP will still be outraged by it.

Keith Howell,

White Moss,

West Linton, Peeblesshire.

THE leaders of our two main political parties were Remainers and both showed the same appetite for the campaign to stay in the EU as a vegan would for steak and kidney pudding.

It is hardly surprising, then, that we find ourselves in such chaos trying to leave the EU. The complexities and logistics involved are far greater than anticipated, as are the amount of time, effort and money involved in trying to find a solution to the problem; one that had not previously existed.

The people were told that, for the UK to leave the EU, it would be a relatively straightforward and simple matter that would be beneficial to the entire country.

To date, no concrete solution to this problem has materialised; nor does it appear likely to in the immediate or foreseeable future.

Brian T McFarlane,

14 Balmoral Drive,

Cambuslang.

AFTER the Commons result on a “meaningful vote” on the Brexit withdrawal bill, the self-congratulatory donkey noises coming from an opposition that did virtually nothing to prevent this disaster were sickening.

The Tories were fighting over a cadaver they hit in a drunken car chase. Labour simply whinged about the way the corpse was to be delivered to the morgue; and they both think they won something.

Amanda Baker,

Saughton Gardens,

Edinburgh.

BREXIT (noun).

1. A dog’s breakfast, a mess, a complete unmitigated disaster.

2. A fraudulent promise (for example £350 million extra per week to the NHS).

3. A bad idea not properly explained or thought out.

James Caldwell,

19 Euchan Place, Troon.