FOLLOWING the vote to Leave it was clear from the outset the main area of contention would be about the UK’s ongoing relationship with the Customs Union (CU) and not about a future trade deal with the EU – especially when there is imbalance of trade of around £90 billion. That is why it is good to see that Theresa May has finally reached out across the political divide to try to find a solution to the “backstop” within the Withdrawal Agreement (WA). After all the backstop is the unacceptable mechanism used by the EU to protect the CU at all costs.

To be fair to the PM, signs for cross-party co-operation were not evident as soon as the result of the referendum was known. Labour was all over the place and the SNP opposed every initiative by the Westminster Government in the mistaken belief a bad Brexit outcome would be good for a second referendum on independence.

Fast forward and at last the Government has got a mandate of sorts to tell Fortress Europe that there would be a majority to pass the WA provided the contentious backstop was modified or removed all together. From the UK’s point of view a combination of technology and pre-border checks (not dissimilar to the current arrangements between Norway and Sweden) could be a feasible alternative arrangement, especially if zero tariffs were agreed in a future trade deal. Not acceptable unless the UK stayed in the CU, they shouted. The reason for EU intransigence is clear: a Britain outside the single market and CU, with an “open” border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, without close ultra-regulatory alignment, allowed to strike its own trade deals would pose a huge competitive threat to the bureaucratic and unaccountable EU’s very existence. In my opinion the current stand-off has little to do with the Good Friday Agreement and everything to do with the survival of the EU. Time for the US to back the UK in this unequal fight against protectionism, inequality and the ideologues of the EU.

Ian Lakin,

Pinelands, Murtle Den Road, Milltimber, Aberdeen.

BREXIT – who let the dogs out? Whilst the machinations of the Brexit saga continue unabated, with hindsight it may be argued that David Cameron's decision to give the electorate an in/out referendum on Europe was to say the least, tactically flawed. Ostensibly his aim was to stall the advances being made by Ukip under the leadership of Nigel Farage, but as events have unfolded, Mr Farage's principal aim is alive and well. Love him or loathe him, Nigel Farage is an extremely clever and articulate man. He's no longer in the political limelight, but one wonders if he is quietly biding his time – occasional appearances in the media, usually smiling broadly, suggests he may well be. His exploitation of xenophobia south of the Border greatly enhanced his popularity there and if anything, he added to that xenophopia. Notably he made little headway in Scotland – an incident whereby he had to speedily take refuge in a bar on Edinburgh's Royal Mile, attests to that.

Warnings of the economic consequences of leaving the EU have had little effect. Those pushing for us to leave are well aware of these consequences but don't care – their motives are purely political. If Brexit in any form takes place, I believe it will be the beginning of the end for the United Kingdom. Leave voters south of the Border will not care a jot - English nationalism is on the rise and they will be glad to see the back of us.

Prior to David Cameron granting an in/out referendum on Europe, Ukip had a measure of influence but little parliamentary power. Granting that referendum presented them with power due to the numbers of xenophobic voters that could be mustered south of the border – yes, our David let the dogs out.

Andrew Chesters,

15 Gilloch Crescent, Dumfries.

ALLAN Sutherland (Letters, January 31) challenges our own opposition MSPs to be more like the DUP leader in the House of Commons, Nigel Dodds, in dealing with politicians from the SNP. I wonder if Mr Sutherland's admiration for Mr Dodds's oratorical prowess extends to an appreciation for the policies and values of his party. He ought to be cautious in praising the alleged skills of a politician like Mr Dodds, as it could be interpreted as an endorsement of the party that he represents in Parliament.

It would be of great concern if the intolerant and antediluvian views of the DUP were to find any support in our mainstream Scottish Parliament. The party's fundamentalist policies on same-sex marriage, LGBT rights and abortion are not only antiquated but malevolent. I am proud to say that I can think of no MSP currently in Holyrood, irrespective of party colours, who would stoop to the consistently amoral depths of the DUP.

Owen Kelly,

8 Dunvegan Drive, Stirling.

AS we’re dragged ever deeper into the Brexit quagmire, something I wrote a few years ago seems to become more relevant with every passing day:

There’ll come a day when poets rule this land

old laws repealed and brand new words fast mined

to sing our country's wonders to the world.

An hourly verse will mark the end of time

each morning's task completed with a rhyme

as sentences are treasured for both sound

and sense. The stuffy schools will close, books birled

into two piles: poetry and prose.

No doubt there'll be, as ever, some of those

stiff pedants who insist each line must scan

and half rhymes are a cheat; yet to a man

and woman makars will defend their right

to break the rules in any way they can

in that new dawn when poets lead our land.

The time has surely come for a convocation of writers, painters, musicians, film makers, sculptors and artists in every medium to come up with truly creative responses to the current shambles. They could hardly make a worse mess of it than the politicians have done.

Shantiketu (Michael Rigg),

21 Southbrae Drive, Glasgow.

FURTHER to the Rev Dr John Cameron's remarks (Letters, February 1) on Alison Rowat's review of Inside Europe (BBC2, January 28) presenting the views and opinions of various European leaders regarding Brexit, I found the subtitles provided adopted a conceptual approach, in as much as, there were a number of incidences of inaccurate translation.

Perhaps the view was taken that presenting the gist of what had been said would suffice, however, in the case of the comment that the good Reverend mentioned, may I suggest there is a significant difference between questioning the validity of the proposals – They're wrong" and doubting the sanity of the proposers, for what Nicolas Sarkozy actually said was "C'est fou!" – "It's crazy!"

Maureen McGarry-O'Hanlon

Dalvait, Riverside, Balloch.

Read more: Analysis: EU can just say Non to May