THE outcome of votes cast across the EU in the forthcoming European Parliamentary elections will play a key role in how Brexit is ultimately shaped.
In these elections traditionally dominant centre-right (EPP) and centre-left (S&D) parliamentary groups are forecast to lose significant numbers of seats – and the majority they have held for 40 years. The liberals (ALDE) and Greens should be stronger, and the right-wing, EU-critical populists in Matteo Salvini and Marine Le Pen’s new European Alliance of People and Nations much stronger.
Majorities will be harder to form and less stable; nation-first parties seeking “less Europe” and more power for member states will have a greater influence on policy.
The European Parliament has to sign off on the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement (assuming it is ever passed in Westminster) and this could be problematic if the current stable majority, which has generally backed the European Commission’s Brexit approach, is disrupted by a large contingent of populist, EU-critical MEPs.
The new parliament will also have a considerable say in the make-up of the new Commission, which could involve British MEPs, and will eventually negotiate the EU’s future relationship with the UK. Finally, MEPs will have to agree the future relationship itself.
In all of these areas a more divided, polarised and unstable European Parliament with potentially conflicting demands could create considerable problems for the UK.
Alex Orr,
Edinburgh EH9.
I NOTE with interest Jeremy Hunt's article ("Free media fundamental for a healthy society", The Herald, May 16), in which he states that "a society benefits not just from the brains of the people who happen to be at the top, but from the originality and creativity of the entire population".
The Brexit fiasco has proven that sadly, it is not guaranteed that those "at the top" have even a modicum of intelligence and with regards to Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement Bill, not even the most creative can make a silk purse out of sow's ear.
Maureen McGarry-O'Hanlon,
Balloch.
NIGEL Farage is touring the country, with stops including Edinburgh, telling everyone what a terrible mess the Conservatives and Labour have made of Brexit, and that by now the UK should have left the EU. The country is tearing itself apart, but Mr Farage acts as though it has nothing to do with him or his party.
The Leave campaign was fought based on lies and promises which were impossible to deliver. £350 nillion a week extra for the NHS, the easiest trade deal in history, 70m Turks already heading to the UK, taking back control of our money, laws and borders. All exaggerations or lies in 2016. They not only broke their promises, they broke the law too. The Vote Leave campaign was fined £61,000 by the Electoral Commission for breaking electoral law over spending limits.
The country is deeply divided, and it is divided because of the way the Leave campaign was run. Jeremy Corbyn to his credit has been trying to find a solution that will bring the country together; only Labour represents all parts of the country, whether people voted Leave or Remain. And he is being unfairly criticised by all sides for his efforts.
The Brexit Party is a party led by right-wingers, a mix of city bankers, property developers, care home proprietors and former Tories, trying to pass themselves off as the workers' friend. An admission of culpability for the mess the country is now in would not go amiss from Mr Farage and his Brexit Party.
Phil Tate,
Edinburgh.
Read more: Corbyn pulls out of cross-party Brexit talks
REGARDLESS of any political opposition people may feel toward the current leader of the British Labour Party, it is surely worth pointing out that he is both democratically elected under the rules of his own party and that he has a pretty well established history of pacifism and democratic political engagement. To attempt to portray Mr Corbyn as a figure to be categorised along with Hitler, Pinochet, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, as your correspondent Dr RM Morris did (Letters, May 17), is hysterical nonsense and is a symptom of a badly degraded level of political discourse in this country.
Oppose Mr Corbyn's political views by all means, but surely this should be done on the basis of policy and not on the kind of incessant personal attacks which do no credit to our democratic traditions. Some people really need to calm down.
David Gray,
Glasgow G11.
DESPITE Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland (HMICS) expressing concern over the cost and manpower required to police public events, the nationalist group All Under One Banner (AUOB) is still promoting another seven marches around Scotland this Summer.
The HMICS’s report states: “Officers and staff are concerned about the volume of events and report a negative impact on their ability to deliver policing to the communities.” It stresses that although it charges for some of the bigger events, the money recovered by the force does not reflect the costs incurred.
AUOB is also offering to bus people up to an Aberdeen march from the central belt at £18/head despite a “Climate change emergency” having been declared by the SNP whose website declares that “Scotland can be proud of our action on climate change – and we must do more and go further”.
If it really cared about Scotland, the SNP should be urging these would-be-marchers to "Stay closer to home and do something useful" such as picking up litter or helping in the community.
Over the last decade, many millions of man hours, money, political and legislative energy have been squandered on either promoting or opposing separation. Far more will be wasted in the next 10 years if we allow the SNP to continue this quest. The equivalent effort would be more effective if applied to the real problems we face.
Mark Openshaw,
Aberdeen AB15.
NOT only was the majority of Scottish history omitted in my schooling in the 1940s and 50s ("Young Scots learning about the nation's history through Brexit", The Herald, May 14, and Letters, May 15) we suffered from the attempts to "Britify" us by items manufactured in Scotland being labelled “Made in North Britain”.
Jim Montgomery, Peebles.
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