NOW that we know so much about the EU’s failings thanks to Richard Mowbray (Letters, October 3) we should examine one of his cherished alternatives, the World Trade Organisation (WTO). For whilst he berates the EU he says nothing about what “free trade” means and what the WTO is.

“Free trade” most certainly does not mean that one country is “free” to do as it pleases with its counterparts in a trading bloc; whether it is the EU, the WTO or whatever. “Free trade” is “free” in that a nation trades “freely” … but within a framework of pre-agreed rules. So a trading bloc, any trading bloc, comes with strings attached.

Also, the WTO is based in Geneva – not Brussels. And of course not London. So one must assume that Mr Mowbray prefers, for personal reasons, Geneva to Brussels; otherwise why bother ditch Brussels for Geneva?

And like Mr Mowbray, “lazing in front on my television”, here is what I noted (this can be found on a search of the BBC News website:

“Opposition to the WTO centres on four main points:

WTO is too powerful; it can compel sovereign states to change laws and regulations by declaring these to be in violation of free trade rules.

WTO is run by the rich for the rich and does not give significant weight to the problems of developing countries. For example, rich countries have not fully opened their markets to products from poor countries.

WTO is indifferent to the impact of free trade on workers' rights, child labour, the environment and health.

WTO lacks democratic accountability; its hearings on trade disputes are closed to the public and the media.

Supporters argue that it is democratic; its rules were written by its member states, many of whom are democracies, who also select its leadership. They also argue that the WTO helps to raise living standards around the world.”

Sound familiar?

P Fabien,

41 Kingsborough Gardens, Glasgow.

I HAVE had the good fortune to be a member of a small European consortium which meets periodically to share ideas and success stories on soil education and engagement with the public on this vital natural resource.

I have recently returned from our latest meeting In Bratislava and this made me reflect on the UK's Brexit decision. The EU is not just about trade agreements (which tend to dominate current debates) but also on collaborative working on a whole range of important issues; I am sure that there are many other pan-EU groups which have had similar positive experiences and outcomes.

What will come of these collaborations post-Brexit? Everyone gains from constructive sharing of ideas, working in isolation benefits no one. My colleagues and friends in this group have difficulty in understanding the decision that the UK has taken and openly query the quality of our negotiating politicians. I find it difficult not to be disloyal and unpatriotic.

I also despair at the likely lack of opportunities for our young people to undertake similar roles after Brexit; too many of my generation have been selfish and short-sighted, I'm afraid.

Willie Towers,

Victoria Road, Alford, Aberdeenshire.

THE pundits in the UK mainstream media are waxing eloquent about schism in the two former Better Together parties, Tory and Labour.

At present, the inner turmoil at the Tory conference over Brexit is being seen by some as a schism-in-waiting. Theresa May laughs it off as not wanting a Cabinet of “yes men” and pop-up Ruth Davidson at the Tory conference simply tells delegates to “man up”, whatever that means. Labour’s fudge on Brexit was less vociferous, but it was there and north of the Tweed the branch is in open internecine turmoil during the process to choose a new branch manager, contradicting the claim by Jeremy Corbyn that it is united.

Yet, looking wider, one may in reality be witnessing the beginning of the end of the British state in its present ramshackle set up.

The British parties are not primarily at odds with each other over domestic policy but over measures re Brexit which are critical for the future existence of the Westminster-centric state.

Even Ms Davidson vacillating between Westminster and Holyrood has called for the end of London "dominance”, but does not actually spell out the detail other than to say it needs to happen to preserve the Union now under threat from even Mr Corbyn. Confusion all round.

At some point the imprecise detail in No 10’s Brexit points regarding the three exit issues needs to be firmed up together with the outlines of the proposed new deal, bespoke or otherwise.

That will either make or break the phoney war within the main UK parties as the EU will then determine the outcome and the future parameters of the UK and its position vis-a-vis the Continent and the wider world.

The current turmoil will be viewed retrospectively as insignificant compared to the upheaval which will erupt.

John Edgar,

4 Merrygreen Place, Stewarton.