AN old proverb says “There's none so blind as those that won't see”, which was plentifully illustrated by your Letters Pages today (September 24). We have come to expect irrationality from your correspondent Richard Mowbray, but it is sad that others also seem to have fallen for the delusion that leaving the EU will somehow usher in a socialist Utopia, whatever that may be. Anyone who is not blinded by faith can surely see that the real beneficiaries of a hard Brexit will be the odious Jacob Rees-Mogg and his ilk, who manipulate capital markets with their wealth, in effect robbing the rest of us. The EU is actually proposing legislation to curtail this sort of chicanery, a major reason for the Tories' indecent haste to prevent this being implemented in the UK.

Further, if Mr Mowbray and others were to read the proposals by Liam Fox for removal of workplace legislation and for allowing Donald Trump to ride roughshod over environmental protection in order to secure some illusory trade deal, they might, though I fear it is unlikely, wake up to the unpleasant reality they are causing us to face. As for Theresa May's petulant outburst, one would be disappointed by such behaviour in a thwarted toddler. In an adult placed in a position of power, it is appalling.

Dr RM Morris,

Veslehaug, Polesburn, Methlick, Ellon.

I WAS pleased this morning (September 24) to see my erstwhile colleague Richard Mowbray return to the Letters Pages. However, time has not mellowed him at all.

His argument that on Thursday EU leaders were clear “about the integrity of the single market” is not only absolutely correct (though don’t see political union as its necessary conclusion) but also illustrates the lack of discernment in the UK negotiating position since March last year.

The EU has been consistently clear that it would defend the integrity of the single market. It was very soon after the EU referendum that its negotiators first mentioned “cherries”, yet the UK continued to fantasise that the EU would be so devastated by our leaving that it must come to its senses and offer the sort of trade deal we would accept. Who would buy their wine and their motor cars if not us?

Except, allowing the UK privileged access to the single market, not following rules that even member states are obliged to follow, was not a consequence the EU was prepared to countenance. Other countries seeking trade deals would cite the example of the UK, while perhaps even member states might seek similar derogations. Over time the EU’s single market would be chipped away at and gradually collapse. The choice facing the EU was a single market without the UK, or, in time, no single market. I have no doubts at all that Mr Mowbray’s preference would be for the latter, however that is not the balance of opinion on the continent, which is the reality the UK should have been attending to.

Mr Mowbray though is confident that World Trade Organisation terms will see us ok. However, it is interesting that he quotes maximum tariffs on manufactured goods of two to four per cent (though 10 per cent on cars), but omits tariffs on agricultural products which, according to a Parliamentary report, could be as high as 30-40 per cent. Nor does he mention the consequences for UK banks of their loss of “passporting rights”, which brings in £9 billion a year just now, which would have a significant impact on balance of trade since the UK relies heavily on a significant surplus on services.

But, he claims, we should take comfort from the fact that though CAP payments would end, “British farmers will require income support "deficiency payments (as they did before 1973).” Mr Mowbray goes on to refer to UK farmers having “to compete under conditions of free trade and world market prices” so they will have to find other markets somewhere else in the world. It would be good to know which ones and how quickly? Prices might fall, but the consequences would be on the agricultural sector, and especially those farming marginal land, such as hill farms, typical of Scotland.

There are few countries trading exclusively under WTO rules. America, for instance, is part of NAFTA with Canada and Mexico. An enthusiastic Brexiter, Mr Mowbray continues to fail to offer any explanation just why the UK would be successful under this regime.

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue, Dumbarton.

ON reading today's Letters Pages I was struck by your good fortune in having so many correspondents with expertise in finance, economics and international affairs. Having people with greater knowledge of such matters than the Governor of the Bank of England, HM Treasury, noted economists, business leaders and sundry others of this type must be a real catch for you. I noted one of your experts described a majority of two per cent as substantial, this was something I had not realised.

R Mill Irving,

Station House, Station Road, Gifford, East Lothian.

IT’S time to stop running after the EU like a dog after its master.

We should tell them we’ve done our best to accommodate them but it has been rejected so we should stop the negotiations right now and tell them it’s a “no deal” but we are willing and ready to trade with any individual European country if it so wishes. Too much emphasis is placed on the EU’s power over us when it is patently obvious it is cracking at the seams and unlikely to exist in the not-too-distant future.

As far as an Irish border is concerned, it’s the EU that needs it to safeguard its trade protectionism, not the UK. Any hard border should be fiercely resisted by the UK and seen as the EU’s call, not ours.

The bottom line is the EU as an institution needs to give us a “bad deal” for it to survive.

Angus Macmillan,

Meikle Boturich, near Balloch, Dunbartonshire.

WHAT exactly is a "no deal" Brexit? Surely it can only be a "No" Brexit.

The whole thing has been wrongly handled from the start – there should have been at least two referenda, the first one on whether or not we should find out the terms for a Brexit and then, having found out the terms, whether or not we wish to leave the EU.

Members of the Government would be the first to tell us that we should never sign up to anything before reading the small print – we were never given any small print to read.

We even have the ridiculous situation where our MPs are voting on this important issue according to their political party and not according to the wishes of their constituents.

G Braidwood Rodger,

6 Woodhouse Court, Glasgow.