WE are in full Brexit frenzy and understandably so due to the magnitude and complexity of the consequences of the EU referendum vote last year. A few things come to mind.
Firstly, the media is focusing daily on Michel Barnier, David Davis, Jean-Claude Juncker and Theresa May; not surprisingly given their roles in the process. However, it is important to remember that these four people are only as representative of Europe as a piece of driftwood is representative of the Atlantic Ocean. Europe is not the same as the EU.
The responsible media reflects (helpful reasonably accurately) one small piece of the picture. However, it is far from the full picture.
Last week I visited Milan as a tourist. The locals there were virtually indistinguishable from my son and me, especially when I carried my Gazzetta della Sport. (Although, to be honest, the local men were probably more stylishly dressed than me). I can’t read Italian very well but I can read the football scores. In Italy, two goals beat one goal; the same as in the UK. We must not let the political machinations divide the people of Europe – EU or no EU.
As a born and bred Glaswegian I can easily remember the drabness and negativity of Glasgow in the 1970s. One of the many, many factors over the past 40 years which have turned Glasgow into a great city to live and work and visit has been the influx of young, positive, hardworking Europeans that have come here – I personally have met Poles, Slovenians, Spanish and Slovakians. They have improved my city.
As an organisation, the EU ranks on my personal league table of respected organisations in the same place as FIFA and the Weinstein Company. Leaving the EU will be massive and complex. But leaving the EU should not mean we leave Europe.
In this modern world of transport and communication channels, Europe is a village. This is not the time to retrench into a UK bunker.
The EU referendum offered voters a binary choice – leave or remain. The majority of the UK voters chose to leave and, as a democracy, we should do so, even if 48 per cent of voters didn’t like the result. While I understand Mr Barnier, Mr Davis and thousands of others are focused on the current EU extraction process, I would hope that there are people in Europe who might start thinking about an alternative option. In the same way that it was a paradox that there was only one Monopolies Commission, why should there only be one European-wide grouping of states. Why don’t the people of Europe come up with a better alternative?
David Cameron tried to achieve this in a few short months in advance of the EU referendum but failed to do so and then endured a referendum vote against his Remain recommendation which led to his resignation as PM, and the current chaos.
Why can’t we devise and offer the option of an alternative Europe based on a clear prospectus for building a better future for the generations of Europeans to come?
Stuart MacDonald,
2 Morar Place, Newton Mearns.
IT was wrong for the then Prime Minister in June 2016 to put party before country and call the EU membership referendum, and it would be wrong for the now Prime Minister not to put country before party and promise a second referendum on the exit terms negotiated, deal or no deal.
Amid the ensuing shambles is there no one who is man, or woman, enough to stand up and admit “we got it wrong.”?
It seems likely the Brexit pie in the sky will turn out to be egg on the face.
R Russell Smith,
96 Milton Road, Kilbirnie.
NICOLA Sturgeon says people have the right to know what the Brexit price will be. I seem to recall in the run-up to the 2014 referendum the same question being asked many times on the cost of Scottish independence.
We are still waiting on an answer from the SNP.
Roy B Hudson,
29 Heather Avenue, Bearsden.
IN the midst of our muddle of indecision over Brexit, might we take time to consider who got us into this mess in the first place? David Cameron, now slipped away into the night of former Prime Ministers who have disgraced themselves in office.
That our constitution, written or not, allowed this individual to promote a scheme by which he hoped to gain party advantage, and in so doing, risk the country being thrown into chaos by a single vote, suggests to me we are not the stable democracy we think we are.
While we are deep in the chaos, is it now time to remind ourselves, and this hapless ex-Prime Minister of his responsibility in the matter? That one man by his self-serving plan has caused such upheaval nationwide, has to be wondered at, and will be, by future students of the democratic process?
For those pleased with the result can they be entirely happy at how easily it was obtained?
Even my local bowling club requires a 60 per cent majority to overturn the constitution.
I think we might have Cameron open-topped bus going round the country as a modern version of the stocks; the man himself prominently displayed, and given time to reflect on his actions before sloping off to his city job.
Citizens from around the country, in viewing such a passing spectacle, would also have time to reflect on how one man was given so much power to disadvantage so many.
Alex Robertson,
5 Endfield Avenue, Glasgow.
THE many correspondents bemoaning the catastrophic performance of the Westminster Goverment's handling of Brexit are simply wasting energy.
Every Scot should be fully focused on how best to save our country from the sinking ship that is the UK and establish it as a fully independent country within the increasingly improving European Union - that is, independent as in Germany, France etc.
An independent Scotland within Europe, and using the euro, would pose Westminster no greater difficulties than dealing with the Republic of Ireland and the proposed soft border with Northern Ireland.
There has never been a more important time for Scotland to once again regain its independence.
John Elder,
Howden Hall Road, Edinburgh.
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