I AGREE with Thom Cross (Letters October 25) in so far as the current EU leaving negotiations appear to be characterised as “a grubby angry divorce”.

However, what seems to me to be missing so far, is a negotiated contingency plan for the possible post-Brexit political scene in the UK. That is, what if the Labour Party wins the next General Election, which is scheduled for May 5, 2022?

We will have left the EU, about 13 months earlier, on March 29, 2019 and the full horror of what we have done will be clear to the Leave camp and the rest of us. I suggest that the chief Leave campaigners whose lies were presented to us as great truths and are now well exposed as opinions and hopeful intentions and not solid facts, will undoubtedly be pilloried.

It is quite possible that an empowered Labour Party would be pressed by trade union organisations, which will monitor post-Brexit employment figures, to hold a referendum on quickly rejoining the EU before any more damage is done. Without a very attractive divorce deal, we have no way of knowing what devious purchasing directives the 27 member states of the newly re-formed EU will receive from Brussels. They may well borrow from the campaigning slogan of President Trump and say “EU first”, making trade with the UK so complex and covertly protectionist that the UK will enter a period of very hard times.

Will Theresa May by then have slammed the door shut so tightly we would have no chance of re-entry? Will the final terms of our divorce settlement be binding for all time coming or could a hard Brexit soften in the longer term with further talks? Would the EU still be so deeply offended that the cost of our possible re-entry would be prohibitive with no chance of appeasement?

If Jean Claude Juncker, President of the EU Commission, is still around, I expect he would laugh at us and not even answer the knock on the door. I feel his generally cool attitude reminds me of Charles De Gaulle who vetoed us joining the then Common Market in the 1960s. If Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, were in charge, however, I have a feeling we might be in with a chance of reconciliation; he seems to me to be genuinely disappointed we are leaving.

Perhaps it would be helpful if we had the next General Election in late 2018 – well, helpful to the pro-EU camp anyway.

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive, Milngavie.

YOUR correspondent Alasdair Galloway (Letters, October 23) suggests that it would be preferable to have remained within the EU, and attempted reform from within. If only.

As the Common Market morphed into the European Community, then to the European Union, time after time again, the Commissioners have produced plans which, when concern was expressed about their implications, produced responses from our betters: "There's no need to worry, it's just conceptual navel gazing." As the plan's shadow lengthened, this changed to "Ah, don't worry, it won't apply to us'" Only it did, and we often added a few bells and whistles of our own, for good measure.

Our Government's ability to usefully effect change was dramatically demonstrated in 2016 when, despite frequent visits of the Prime Minister and other UK Government officials, all that David Cameron could achieve were a few trivial concessions related to peripheral issues. Even these were grudgingly offered by the EU officials who, we were assured, shared HM Government's views on the need to amend various aspects of the structure and function of the EU.

If the result of the referendum had been to stay in, rather than leave the EU, no matter how small the majority, I strongly suspect that this would have been regarded as a wholehearted endorsement by the Europhiles, and we would have been pressed to commit ourselves to even further integration with the EU bodies rather than attempt any reform.

Christopher W Ide,

25 Riverside Road, Waterfoot, East Renfrewshire.

THE Government is deliberately keeping the electorate in the dark about the probable impact of Brexit on the UK economy. Why?

It can’t be so as to keep the EU negotiators guessing as they will have access to similar informed guesses.

It can’t be good news or else it would be headline news.

It can only be to keep us in a state of ignorance because it fears that prediction of gloom and doom may motivate the apathetic to get off their backsides and do something.

The Government is probably betting that the great unwashed will be too busy post-Brexit queuing for foodbank coupons to realise that they have been sold a pup again. All because of Boris Johnson's ego and Tory Party internal politics. Makes you proud, doesn’t it?

David J Crawford,

85 Whittingehame Court, 1300 Great Western Road, Glasgow.

RECENTLY, the ITV drama Victoria came to the end of the series. I enjoyed it very much and found the parallels with today’s turbulent times extremely interesting.

History is not my strong point. However, it crossed my mind a Prime Minister of the calibre and integrity of Robert Peel might help us find a way out of this mess.

Any suggestions?

Jacqui Mair,

19 Murchland Way, Irvine.

ANY Brexit deal will have major consequences for many elements of Scottish life, the economy, living standards, industry, so it is vital that we get a clear induction on future devolved powers that could come to Scotland as a result of a future deal. So I was not surprised to hear SNP MPs at Scottish Questions in the Commons (October 25)) repeatedly question the Scottish Secretary on possible future devolved powers as a result of Brexit. But what I was surprised with was the response from the Conservative Government benches.

Conservative minsters and Conservative MPs were unable to respond in any constructive way, only responding with mocking of the SNP benches. But the real revelation was that many of the mockers were Scottish Conservative MPs who clearly demonstrated by their actions where their loyalties lie.

Catriona C Clark,

52 Hawthorn Drive,

Banknock, Falkirk.