YOU suggest that a second referendum looks increasingly likely (“No, Mrs May, MPs are not to blame for this mess, and it is voters who may have to find a way out”, Herald Comment, March 22). We had one in 2016 when there was a majority in favour of Brexit.
Parliament agreed to enact the will of the people and, subsequently, after much debate in the Commons and Lords, the European Union (Notice of Withdrawal Act 2017) was given royal ascent on March 16, 2017. I understand the bill at the third reading in the Commons was passed on a 494 for and 122 against vote before being sent onto the Lords.
Subsequently, the Lords voted to return the Bill to Parliament with two amendments, both of which were rejected by Parliament, one amendment by 335 against and 287 for, and the second by 331 against and 286 for.
Therefore, it is not just Theresa May who must shoulder the blame for the fiasco that has unfolded. It is Parliament as a whole that is to blame for failing to agree on a deal and I put this down to the fact that all of the parties are incapable of setting party politics aside to arrive at a solution. They seem more intent on scoring petty political points rather than getting on with the job in hand.
It is pointless having a second referendum. If Parliament cannot deliver on the first referendum what chance is there that it will deliver on a second one? That’s assuming it takes any notice of it.
READ MORE: Theresa May's premiership teetering on the brink as she confronts Cabinet plotters
Brian Bell
15 Muirpark Road,
Kinross.
AS a believer in fulfilling democratic decisions and someone who voted to leave the EU, my response to Remainers who are expressing near apoplectic joy at the size of the parliamentary petition to revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU is; after all the names of those who are ineligible to vote, including those from Russia, China, North Korea, Europe and elsewhere in the world have been removed from the petition and the total of genuine voters comes to 17.4 million plus 1, I will then take it seriously.
Paul Lewis,
99 Guardwell Crescent, Edinburgh.
THE Prime Minister has stated on numerous occasions that she will not contemplate a second referendum on Brexit as “the people have spoken”. She is preparing to introduce to the Commons her plan for leaving the EU for a third time, despite if being overwhelmingly rejected twice.
Does she not see an inconsistency in so doing? Or does she not believe that “Parliament has spoken?” The public have been told often enough that we live in a parliamentary democracy but it would appear that Theresa May only believes in a parliamentary democracy when it gives her what she wants; not that other inhabitants of the Westminster bubble are blameless. They have dithered, swithered and offered no Plan B. The quality of debate might be improved if all MPs were to take, on a regular basis, Imodium.
T J Dowds,
6q Fleming Road, Cumbernauld.
THE problem with Brexit has been the failure by the UK Government to clearly establish a consensus on the terms upon which the UK should leave the EU. I suspect that the extension to April 12 will be insufficient time to achieve such consensus.
There is also insufficient time to allow the UK to leave in a “no-deal” situation since, in that scenario, the UK and the EU need to prepare accordingly for trading between themselves under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.
It is naive to think that all companies and individuals can immediately complete the necessary paperwork to conform with the WTO regulations and travel arrangements. Many, particularly in Europe, will take the path of least resistance and cease trading across the English Channel.
As for Northern Ireland, the proposed timescale does not give it time to hold an independence referendum to escape from this madness.
Sandy Gemmill,
40 Warriston Gardens, Edinburgh.
DAVID Miller’s suggestion that the UK should just walk away from the EU without any deal ignores the fact that, due to Brexit, the United Kingdom is set to lose £1 trillion of financial assets to EU countries (“This is now a true crisis of democracy, Lead Letters, The Herald, March 22).
Banks and financial firms that make up about 6.5 per cent of the UK’s total wealth have already taken measures to prepare for Brexit, meaning a lot of damage has already been caused.
Earlier this month, Barclays Bank won permission to shift assets worth £166 billion to its Irish division with Barclays set to become Ireland’s biggest bank
As a result of voting No to independence in 2014 and being dragged out of the EU against our will, Scotland is facing a double whammy.
Our university, health, hospitality and farming sectors will suffer as a consequence of Brexit.
In addition, we have also lost out on a massive jobs boost as Dublin is a clear Brexit winner with more than 100 UK companies including banks, asset management and insurance companies moving more than £200bn in assets and creating at least 5,000 jobs in the Irish capital.
Fraser Grant,
61 Warrender Park Road,
Edinburgh.
IT is reported that Theresa May delivered “90 minutes of nothing” at the Council of Ministers in Brussels. That encapsulated the final denouement of this Government at Westminster and its Prime Minister.The German der Spiegel had a football analogy headline: “May wird an die Seitenlinie verbannt.” (“May gets taken off”.)
No doubt a pointed nod to the UK that its English Prime Minister needs to be substituted after failing recent replays miserably and in extra-time. Fintan O’Toole in The Irish Times poses the question of whether England is ready to rule itself at this juncture, given the anarchy prevailing at Westminster.
Even English Votes for English Laws may not be able to save it post Brexit as the predominantly English duopoly, Tory and Labour, with the Liberal Democrats tagged on, are splintering and starting to flail about.
John Edgar,
1a Langmuir Quadrant, Kilmaurs.
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