Lead Letters: May should do the decent thing and quit now

The Prime Minister is obdurate in the extreme: it is telling that, while the EU has 27 members states discussing the future of their union, within the UK the devolved nations, opposition parties and most of her Cabinet have been kept out of discussions concerning the immediate future of the UK.

Mrs May should go; she is now an impediment to progressing any useful relationship with the biggest, closest and most important trading area the UK has.

We are in a national emergency and a coalition government of all parties should be formed to take things forward, perhaps under the auspices of the Speaker.

Secure an Article 50 extension of at least a year then hold a new referendum, given that the electorate are now more informed.

I would wish for international oversight of this referendum to ensure fairness and that it meets the norms of international election standards; but that won’t happen in the UK.

A general election should follow, not precede this plebiscite. The last thing we need is a new bunch of hucksters in 10 Downing Street, “gaming” this situation; not until we have a resolution to Brexit.

GR Weir,

17 Mill Street,

Ochiltree.

THERESA May has castigated MPs for refusing to do her bidding (“May berates MPs for delaying Brexit plans”, The Herald, March 21). She has attempted to turn the public against her political foes in Parliament. This is both irresponsible and dangerous.

The level of abuse and threats of violence against politicians is at an all-time high. Did Mrs May stop to think of MP Jo Cox, who was murdered by a far-right anti-European?

Looking at the political scene at present, whom would you trust? The serial, arrogant incompetence of Mrs May or the imbecilic errors of Jeremy Corbyn? The adult in the room of political children is Nicola Sturgeon, pursuing a path with a well-defined goal and willing to compromise to get there. A second independence referendum cannot come quickly enough.

Francis Buchan,

5 Drybrough Crescent, Edinburgh.

READ MORE: Andrew McKie: Inept Theresa May could lose not just Europe, but the UK

MORAG Black (Letters, March 20) claims that, as part of the 1972 Accession Treaty, the EU restricted UK sovereignty over fishing to a six-mile limit. Fishing comes under Article 100 of the Accession Treaty where member states are authorised “to restrict fishing in waters under their sovereignty or jurisdiction, situated within a limit of six nautical miles, calculated from the base lines of the coastal Member State, to vessels which fish traditionally in those waters and which operate from ports in that geographical coastal area”.

Contrary to what is claimed there is no restriction on sovereignty mentioned but rather a restriction on who can access the inshore fishery. Any dispensations applying before January 31, 1971 such as the London Fisheries Convention (which allows boats of other member states within the three-12-miles zone of UK waters) were allowed to continue as part of this derogation.

Equally, Morag Black cannot claim that there exists an exclusive right for British boats to fish the six-mile zone and yet still be under EU rules. These same rules prohibit discrimination on the grounds of nationality in the provision of goods and services. (One Dutch trawler currently controls 20 per cent of the English fishing quota.)

Paragraph (3) of Article 100 allows member states to extend their limits to 12 miles in whatever areas they so choose, provided there is no retrograde change to fishing activity within the 12 miles by comparison with what existed before January 31, 1971.

Article 101 goes on to state that the six-mile limit can be extended to 12 miles for various member states including the following areas of the UK : The Shetland and Orkney islands; the north and east of Scotland from Cape Wrath to Berwick; the north-east of England from the river Coquet to Flamborough Head; the south-west of England from Lyme Regis to Hartland Point including the isle of Lundy; and County Down. How does this constitute a loss of sovereignty?

Robert Menzies,

2 Burnbrae Gardens, Falkirk.

HANSARD’S report of last week’s House of Commons so-called “debate” on a so-called No Deal is disappointing.

Steven Baker’s brief but welcome contribution, that “No Deal” is in fact several small and very practical deals, was not complemented by other Leaver MPs arguing in any detail in its favour or to counter Kenneth Clarke’s robust but possibly outdated criticism of WTO terms, which many other experts (reportedly including the WTO itself) confirm would be a practical proposition at least initially.

Remainer MPs’ contributions were largely limited to their constant “catastrophic cliff-edge crash” soundbite, again with little detail. So there was almost no debating substance on either side of the argument – a poor basis for such a critical vote.

John Birkett,

12 Horseleys Park, St Andrews.

WHAT with 16th century precedents and the impending meltdown of the so-called Mother of Parliaments, is it not time to agree two things? Namely, the urgent need for a written constitution and a renegotiation of the terms of the Act of Union.

Roddy MacDonald,

1 Glenmount Place, Ayr.

BELEAGUERED Theresa May, assailed and castigated by all sides, carries the Brexit can of worms in the Last-Chance saloon of Westminster, while David Cameron, the man who shamelessly put party before country and then passed the buck, is apparently working on his £800,000 memoirs in a £25,000 garden hut; or should that be doghouse? That’s democrazy for you.

R Russell Smith,

96 Milton Road, Kilbirnie.

PERHAPS the Prime Minister’s problem is one of simple geography and she is confusing Brussels with Lourdes. Surely nobody can seriously doubt that the best thing she has going for her is her willingness to humiliate herself in public?

Doug Clark,

6 Muir Wood Grove, Currie.