FOR more than two years we have been subjected to predictions of the dire consequences that the UK will suffer if we vote to leave Europe and have a hard Brexit. Nearly all of these predictions have turned out to be nonsense but these soothsayers are undeterred and carry on with their ridiculous claims. Perhaps they should reflect on our true relationship with our neighbours.

The UK is the only country in Europe which has actually obeyed the rules. Remember the protesting French farmers who burned sheep alive in the delivery trucks as they arrived in France from the UK? Remember French wine producers adding ethylene glycol (antifreeze) to bad wine and shipping it to the UK? More recently we have had the German motor industry cheating the pollution figures for their cars. Why don’t our politicians face facts? The other EU member countries ignore any rules they don’t like but insist that the UK complies with all the rules. Emmanuel Macron has publicly stated that French boats will fish in UK waters no matter what is agreed (even before he faced civil unrest on the streets of Paris). The Spanish are making similar statements.

Our politicians do not appear to understand market forces. Get out first and then negotiate to let Europe sell its cars, wine and other goods in the UK. If they don’t want to talk then we will buy more cars from the Pacific Rim countries, wine from the New World and whatever else we want. Market forces will come into force where “quid pro quo” applies and things get better. People will buy what that they need or want from wherever they can and not because of any special club.

Theresa May should not be delivering ultimatums to UK politicians, she should be delivering them to the EU bureaucrats and, if they don’t like it, then walk away.

Gregor M Egan,

15 Lowndes Street, Barrhead.

IT is reassuring to learn that the leader of the SNP’s representatives in the UK Parliament is aware of the significance of words and the spin that can be put on them (“Let’s call a spade a spade, she’s lied”, The Herald,, December 6) because the very name, People’s Vote, is clearly a spin on what can reasonably be presented as a second referendum on leaving the EU; “People’s Vote” has a powerful emotive resonance that "referendum" lacks.

But the first referendum on leaving the EU was held in 1975, not in 2016 as many seem to believe, and followed the British Government under Ted Heath, after years of promotion presented as negotiation, joining the then EEC in 1973. So that the 1975 referendum was not on joining but, like the currently proposed plebiscite, on leaving. Taking into account the increased scope for widespread propaganda provided by modern technology and the well-developed sophistication of public relations, the 1971-1975 strategy, first for joining and then for remaining a member of the then EEC, provides a remarkable template for the People’s Vote campaign. This has been described as “a huge operation run by dedicated staff and volunteers” based on demonstrations, organised letter-writing, social media manipulation and a network of powerful interests – all strongly reminiscent of the earlier campaign, which similarly, though understandably, made no reference to the biased presentation of civil servants.

In 1971, (the date of the infamous secret advice by Foreign Office mandarins) the Westminster Parliament was, as today, hopelessly divided irrespective of party regarding the advantages of membership of what is now the European Union and an ambitious campaign was launched to influence popular opinion – not in the interests of the great unwashed, but to engineer a comfortable majority in the House of Commons for Heath’s plan. Similarly the “People’s Vote”, having in itself no authority, is devised to influence the Westminster Parliament, which its supporters hope will persuade the Government into authorising a new referendum.

In both cases a single driving force was needed to co-ordinate policy. Today Labour is by no means united on our relationship with the EU and it is a Labour MP, Chuka Umunna, who has co-ordinated pro-EU and related groups, as did the European Movement in 1971. Even the funding of these two bodies was similar: in the year following March 1972 the European Movement was able to distribute £550,000, much of it from un-named donors, for EEC promotion; finance for the People’s Vote campaign has been raised through crowd-funding.

If Ian Blackford is so concerned about the accuracy of interpretation he should examine the backgrounds and interests of its leading proponents. “People” they undoubtedly are, but not in the sense that we are intended to understand by a “People’s Vote”. It would be at least more honest, if not more accurate, to refer to a second referendum.

Mary Rolls,

58 Castlegate, Jedburgh.

GIVEN the shambles that the Government is making of "respecting the will of the British people" and that it is very clear that there is no majority in Parliament for any decisive action, the question must be returned to the electorate for a final decision.

I’ve heard a lot of muddled thinking being espoused about how you achieve this. It’s very simple, rerun the Brexit question, Do you want the UK to leave the EU? Yes/No, and add a supplementary question, In the event of a Yes vote, do you want Mrs May's Plan/No Deal.

That would resolve the issue once and for all and would be the settled will of the British people.

Bill Hendry,

6 Blackwood Road, Milngavie.

IN times of stress I have a release activity: I “cut” the Bible – that is, I open it with eyes closed and select the left-hand column. Having listened to the Andrew Marr show with more on the Brexit bourach (BBC1, December 9), it seemed more than happenstance that the Book (genuinely) opened at Jeremiah 49 and the verse read: "Is there no longer wisdom (in Teman)?

Has counsel perished from the prudent? Has their wisdom decayed?”

Thom Cross,

18 Needle Green, Carluke.

FOR those who would wish to contribute I’m considering starting a crowd-funding site to fund the purchase an elephant, a howdah, the services of a mahout and a punkah wallah. It’s a damnable shame that David Mundell, who appears to believe and act as if he is the Viceroy of the Raj in Scotland rather than the People’s representative in Westminster, is forced to act the role without the proper trappings of power. Oh, and we need to get a big hat with a white plume on it.

David J Crawford,

85 Whittingehame Court, 1300 Great Western Road, Glasgow.