Letters: We need a summer of protest over Brexit

This is a time, as never before, to remember the words of WB Yeats: “Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

I ask your readers to listen to the recent words of Lord Heseltine urging the people of this country to “rise up and join in this summer of campaigning across the country. This crisis cannot be settled by a deadlocked Parliament or a prime minister elected by a tiny, unrepresentative fraction of the electorate. It can only be settled by us, the people. It’s time for us to be heard.”

In other words, “Citizens, demonstrate, we must march as we have never marched before!” Otherwise we will be found guilty by future generations of having stood idly by while our country was brought to ruin. Forget the “bread and circuses” whenever there is a march near you (reaching a climax in Glasgow on October 12). Ensure that on these days the shopping malls and football stadia are empty.

John Milne, Uddingston.

SINCE David Cameron initiated the grossly irresponsible framework for a referendum in 2016, namely, a simple yes/no majority vote on a profoundly difficult and complicated question, one which would institute a major constitutional change to our country's position in the world, and with no minimum turnout requirement, we have been irrevocably divided. And unlike every other democratic choice for the electorate, this decision was presented as irreversible and not open for subsequent reconsideration in the light of changing circumstances. Not only that, but our elected representatives failed to give consideration to and truthfully articulate the complexities and consequences underlying the simple in/out question. And now they are again abrogating their responsibilities by mouthing such cliches as "the will of the people", or rather, the will of 37 per cent of the electorate who voted Leave. Furthermore, the campaign for a new Tory leader is being driven, self-interestedly, by the Farage factor, with candidates vying with each other in No Deal rhetoric.

While a second referendum now could at least be more rational and democratic, and would probably produce a different decision, that we should remain in the EU, it would not solve the problem of the divisions that have been created. That can only be done by forcefully addressing the important issues that motivated the Leave vote: control of immigration, fishing rights, establishing British values in a multicultural, diverse society, the realm of the courts, not to mention increasing inequality. But many of these matters were exaggerated in the referendum debate, and instead of walking away in a huff, we could and should be negotiating for change with our partners from inside the EU.

David Warden, Bearsden.

SO many rooms, so many elephants. Maybe I watch the wrong programmes, but Brexit has outstripped every other news event in recent years in terms of obvious challenges not raised by the media in interviews and obvious questions not asked.

My current pet pachyderm – politicians signing up to the No Deal cause. Presumably leaving the EU without a deal would mean a hard border in Ireland. We would have no way of preventing the EU from enforcing that. Am I wrong? Has anyone witnessed a "no-dealer" being challenged on this issue?

I do not want to be forced into being a student of politics. I calculate I have watched/listened to well over 2,00 hours of news and current affairs broadcasts over the last three years and I can’t help feeling that, in that time, all obvious questions should have been covered. Maybe I should resort to the letters pages more often.

Steve Henderson, Burray, Orkney.

WHEN Mary Rolls writes a letter one can generally expect an invective against the EU together with the almost obligatory claim of betrayal. Her latest epistle is no exception Letters, June 14).

First, on EU origins. The concept of a United States of Europe with its own European Parliament was first voiced by the English Quaker William Penn in 1693 because he saw it as the best means to stop the endless wars between European countries. After being unable to progress his dream here he crossed the Atlantic, where he was instrumental in creating the United States of America.

Secondly, blaming Edward Heath for taking us into Europe blithely misses the point that the UK first applied to join the EEC as far back as 1961 when Harold McMillan was Prime Minister. This application was strongly opposed by De Gaulle, who believed the UK should stick with the Commonwealth. A further application in 1967 was similarly rejected.

In between times the UK discovered that EFTA (the rival free trade body it set up to compete with the EEC) wasn’t the economic success story that had been forecast by UK politicians. It was not until after De Gaulle’s death that the UK was finally allowed into the EEC in 1973. Heath was simply the post-holder at the time, not the instigator.

The modern history of European integration really starts with the post-war US Marshall plan which was the first attempt at an economic model designed to bring the nations of Europe closer together. It was designed on an intergovernmental rather than a supranational basis. However its administrators quickly found that integration between states was required for it to work. The 1948 Congress of Europe was arranged to tackle this but the UK government preferred intergovermentalism and opposed further integration towards union.

It was this frustration with the UK stance that led the then French foreign minister Robert Schumann to separately pursue an integrated supranational organisation of states when he proposed the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951. This included a "high authority" (later to become the Commission) with decision-making powers to implement the treaty; an Assembly made up of delegates from the six national parliaments involved to supervise the high authority; a Council made up of a representative of each member state with the role of harmonising their activities; and a court of nine judges to adjudicate and oversee the rules.

The point is that from day one the EEC was a supranational project. Furthermore it was known to be such for the 40 years before the UK applied to join in 1973. It is therefore completely bogus for Brexiters to argue that “we thought we were only entering a free trade organisation” or that “we did not realise we were surrendering our sovereignty”.

Robert Menzies, Falkirk.