I COULD almost hear Vera Lynn singing in the background (bluebirds over the white cliffs of Dover) whilst reading Ian Thomson’s exposition of traditional British courage and resilience in the face of adversity, our Dunkirk spirit, in this case during UK’s current Brexit negotiations (Letters, August 8).

“Why should we believe that the British are incapable of rising to the monumental challenge posed by Brexit and of making a lasting success of this opportunity through ‘the dark and cloudy days’, which are bound to arise during and after the process of agreeing exit terms,” he writes.

Unfortunately, Brexit’s “dark and cloudy days” are not just ahead; they are here already and getting darker. The UK has little to offer in negotiations and we are on the back foot; yet this is a situation entirely of our own making. The UK voted to leave the EU, Brexit meant Brexit but, even as Philip Hammond confessed, not to be poorer. Yet that is where we are heading, poorer and divided more than ever.

We have barely started and already we have conceded the agenda on talks. We are on the EU agenda and have run into the first buffer, the divorce bill. Still to come are immigration; the status of EU citizens throughout the EU including in this country; border controls in Northern Ireland; the Good Friday agreement; the status of European Court of Justice authority on matters of joint concern; UK/EU trade arrangements and so on. We will barely have time to breathe, never mind put it right.

But it comes as no surprise that this divorce bill, (and the likelihood of the UK paying it) is first up on the agenda and causing ructions, not only in the cabinet but also in the permanently indignant hard-Brexiter ranks of the Tory Party: the Boris Johnson”let-them-whistle” brigade. Similarly, an optimistic but foolhardly red line is being drawn by Theresa May on the issue of no ECJ authority on mutual issues such as EU citizenship.

I would be more than happy if the Tory Parliamentary Party insisted that the “divorce bill” and other “red-line” issues were to be put to Parliament for approval before agreement with the EU. And thus, the Brexit negotiations would be subject to the approval (or disapproval) of Parliament and the people. That is how it should be.

This is just the start and, unless I am a poor judge, Ian Thomson’s “dark and cloudy days” will most likely give way to thunderstorms and mayhem.

I doubt if “Jimmy will go to sleep in his own little room again” any time soon.

Ian McLaren,

27 Buchanan Drive,

Lenzie.

I WRITE to express my anger at the comments attributed to Vince Cable (“Sir Vince says elderly have landed Brexit pain on young”, The Herald, August 7). I am a pensioner who voted to leave the EU and I also have seven grandchildren. Any insinuation that I would “shaft” them I find grossly offensive.

I voted to join the Common Market to further trade and commerce. I did not vote to join a failing, undemocratic socio-political experiment. Given that European politicians would not accede to any reform, I reluctantly voted to leave the EU. I considered the possible economic risks (tiny in comparison with the banking crisis) and the benefits or regaining parliamentary sovereignty before deciding. I do not consider myself to be a martyr but, for 50 years, I contributed to the wealth of this country so that younger generations could benefit.

Les Dickson,

10 Lindsay Place, Lenzie.