LEAVING the EU under the Theresa May deal has been rejected by a vote against it in the Commons. MPs spent time debating its terms, merits or faults in detail before voting to reject it, in effect dismissing it as an example of a bad deal. As regards the possible alternative of leaving under a No Deal scenario, I am not aware of any similar and detailed consideration of its possible merits or faults, yet in the Commons and media there appears to be a widespread, but not unanimous, dismissal of that possibility out of hand as witnessed by Jeremy Corbyn’s refusal to meet with Mrs May unless she takes No Deal off the table ("May survives vote, but Parliament in paralysis", The Herald, January 17).
Whether the final decision on leaving the EU is left to the Commons, or the people in another referendum, how can anyone reach an informed decision on No Deal without a full debate on its likely merits or faults?
Alan Fitzpatrick,
10 Solomon’s View, Dunlop.
THE latest wheeze from Theresa May – a “will you walk into my parlour” offer to the other parties – is just the latest load of guff from a Prime Minister attempting to save herself from the ignominy of historical contempt. No other Prime Minister in history has been defeated so comprehensively and survived, yet she still soldiers on, not for something new, but again, to wear down those who might help her across the finishing line with the battered Brexit battle plan she carries in her handbag, be they friend or foe. This plan she presents, her Brexit, is only the sum of the prejudices of the various factions of her own party, her red lines the boundaries beyond which one faction or the other could or would never stray.
The other parties are surely aware that the only agenda for any tea party will be “could your get members to agree to a bit of tweaking on the Irish backstop and other small issues and go back to Parliament for a further vote? What would you want in return?”
What the discussion will not include will be the removal of the "no deal" option, a consideration of a People's Vote or a fresh look at any of the "prepack" options like the EEA. The Tories would string her up for that. And that is what it is still all about – party politics, nothing to do with cross-party consensus or an appeal for National unity.
Having almost given up on the prospect of a People's Vote and watching this shameless woman reduce the governance of our country to a farce, the only way out now is to pull back, to take leaving the EU off the agenda. It’s not at all difficult; we just tell the EU that we cannot agree how to leave the club and that we will remain until we can up with something better. Embarrassment, humiliation? That should be no problem, we've been there and dredged the bottom of that barrel already
For us, the people sitting at home watching the TV, working away and going about our daily business, perhaps a few years of peace and normality will be good for us and help heal the wounds which this fiasco has inflicted on our communities. I suspect however that Mrs May will still be carrying "her deal" round in her handbag begging for votes wherever and whenever the opportunity arises. She may talk about how much this issue has divided the nation, but after the events of the week I suspect she really doesn’t care too much.
Ian McLaren,
27 Buchanan Drive, Lenzie.
IF there is to be another referendum on the EU, surely it will be a second referendum, with a different question or questions. People who claim it's a re-run of the first referendum with Remainers attempting to overturn the 2016 result are mistaken. The first referendum was a binary Remain or Leave question. The next referendum should be about the final deal negotiated and whether, given the terms, the electorate now wish to stay in the EU or leave.
The "will of the people" changes at every election. Theresa May's mistake was to seek to implement the will of a very small majority of those who voted.
Lizanne MacKenzie,
63 Albert Road, Dumfries.
IN the midst of the political turmoil over finding a way out on Brexit that commands majority support, Nicola Sturgeon concludes that what Scotland can best contribute is more constitutional uncertainty, as she continues the SNP tactic of treating Scotland like its plaything.
Apparently the First Minister will set out a timetable for independence in a “matter of weeks” ("Nicola Sturgeon promises independence update within weeks but will concentrate first on People’s Vote", The Herald, January 17). It is not enough that amongst all this constitutional divisiveness, she imagines giving us some more will help, but also Scotland is to be toyed with as Ms Sturgeon holds the threat over us, no doubt hoping to pick the moment when she can cause maximum disruption.
Her purpose might or might not be to genuinely seek another vote, as she surely realises what little appetite there will be for it. It is almost as though there is some other local difficulty that she is hoping to distract us from.
Keith Howell,
White Moss, West Linton, Peeblesshire.
THE chance that there will be a no deal Brexit has undoubtedly increased. We must therefore now draw a line in the sand where, if we reach a date when no deal is agreed, then “no deal” must be the decision. Such a line in the sand could be January 29. We must not sleepwalk into such a situation on March 29. My line in the sand would give businesses two months to prepare. Without time to prepare there would be major job losses.
Geoff Moore,
Braeface Park, Alness.
WHETHER one voted to leave or remain we can surely agree: we deserve better.
With whom do I lodge a motion of no confidence in Westminster?
A plague on both your houses.
Grant McKechnie,
1 Broomieknowe Gardens, Rutherglen.
OTTO von Bismarck commented: “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable – the art of the next best.” Brexiters and Remoaners would do well to heed this.
Duncan McAra,
3 Viewfield Avenue, Bishopbriggs.
GIVEN the real possibility of a no deal, and given also that "no deal is better than a bad deal", but that Theresa May believes that her deal is a good deal, should the new mantra not be "no deal is better than a good deal"?
P Fabien,
41 Kingsborough Gardens, Glasgow.
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