WITH the current state of affairs at Westminster regarding the Brexit debate, never has Winston Churchill’s quote on democracy been truer when he said all those years ago: “No one pretends democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Rather than the Westminster being a “laughing stock” as some political commentators and correspondents would have us believe in these columns, my view is that the transparency and the exhaustive debates at Westminster have been compelling viewing not just here in the UK but worldwide. After all, most people understood that it was going to be a huge ask for Theresa May to navigate her way through the warring fractions with such diverse views on Brexit in a hung parliament. But now she has flushed out a number of options (like a second vote and a “no deal” off the table) we are coming down to the wire for the end game.
For example, it appears that she will put her meaningful vote to the test for the third time this week in the belief that the DUP and most of the ERG will support her this time round. This is highly likely, as both groups know that if she fails she will ask the EU for a much longer extension which could be up to two years and would spell disaster for Brexit.
If the PM does pull off the Withdrawal Agreement she will have earned a huge respect and indebtedness from the British people who just want to leave the EU in an orderly manner and get on and strike fair trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world. Having said that, she should quit in the near future whether she wins or not in the knowledge she has done her honest best and allow for another leader (like Dominic Raab) to take us through the further negotiations necessary to secure a good trade deal.
Finally, the clock is also ticking for the EU (particularly the ringmaster Germany) when the US resumes trade talks in May to address a similar trade deficit the UK has with the EU or face a punitive 25 per cent tariff on cars. Maybe Mrs May should have listened to President Trump after all.
Ian Lakin,
Pinelands, Murtle Den Road, Milltimber, Aberdeen.
THE central problem of the issue has been ignored by almost all politicians, journalists and letter writers. It is the fact that there never should have been a referendum.
We elect a Parliament which has the sovereign right and duty to make decisions about the running of the country. It does not have the right to hand back its sovereign power to the people but on all policy issues is obliged to discuss, evaluate and ultimately decide on all national issues. I, like 95 per cent of all the thinking people I know, would be delighted if a second referendum reversed the appalling result of the first but such a referendum would, like the first, be a betrayal of Parliament’s duty and would, like the first, possibly be influenced by the votes of the substantial elements of society who are totally ignorant of the issues or would vote to leave if the European Union was the most perfect economic, social, political, legal, military system possible, which of course it is not and never will be.
I would welcome a referendum but only if, unlike that of 2016, it was a consultative process to assess public opinion, but not to deprive Parliament of the powers which only Parliament has the right and duty to exercise.
Kenneth Roberts,
86 Larkfield Road, Lenzie.
LEAVING the European Union on March 29, 2019 was enshrined in law by the UK Parliament. If it refuses to obey the law does that mean that UK citizens could also refuse to obey laws which they do not like?
Morag Black,
3 Leeburn Avenue, Houston.
IN the EU referendum in 2016, I voted to remain, however, living in a democracy I accepted the nation voted to leave the EU. But we have got to ask what are the politicians doing.
First of all we have the LibDems wanting to remain or have a second vote; then we have the SNP wanting to remain and with its MPs not going to agree with anyone or come up with a sensible solution; then Labour MPs want a second referendum or a General Election. And we have the Conservative Government split because of the Remainers and Brexiters not being able to agree.
The Prime Minister has been saying all along that the people voted and it is the politicians who should be working together to achieve the best deal for the UK. With all the time wasting and arguing, the UK is being laughed at by the rest of Europe, who can hold back on allowing us to get a realistic deal for all. It is obvious that the politicians do not believe in democracy.
Gordon Ross,
118 Main Road, Cumbernauld.
ON Thursday Hilary Benn’s amendment was defeated by 314 to 312, a mere two votes, while a day earlier MPs voted 312 to 308 to reject a no-deal Brexit under any circumstances. Both were very slim majorities requiring only two or three to switch sides for the results to have gone the other way. All that such votes demonstrate is that our MPs are hopelessly divided, and it would be disingenuous to state that either result truly reflected the clear will of parliament as a whole.
In June 2016 the results of the EU referendum were 17,410,742 for Leave and 16,141,241 for Remain, making the majority for Leave just 1,269,501, another slim majority (3.78 per cent). Indeed, it would have required only 634,751 Leave voters to vote the other way to reverse the result. So what? Well, while Leave won, the result was decided by only 634,751 votes (1.89 per cent of those voting). Certainly Leave had a majority, but a referendum result decided by a mere 634,751 votes across an electorate of 46.5 million only served to emphasise that the people of Britain were hopelessly divided on the issue of Europe, and being legally only advisory, it should have been overruled by parliament, with all future referendums requiring a much more decisive majority.
Rev David A Collins,
25 Ballinard Gardens, Broughty Ferry, Dundee.
Read more: MPs mandate Theresa May to ask Brussels for Brexit delay
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