ERIC Melvin (Letters, January 22) condemns the “intemperate language” used by Theresa May and Liam Fox but must recognise that the “crashing out, cliff edge, catastrophe” constantly quoted by others about leaving the EU on World Trade Organisation terms is also grossly excessive – and denies the measured arguments by many expert lawyers, economists, academics, WTO officials and business leaders like Lord Bamford of JCB fame, Sir James Dyson, Rocco Forte et al, that “no deal” should not be feared.

A decision now to adopt WTO terms (under which most global trade and much of ours operate) would, though belated, give more certainty and clarity to business than a further two years or more of trying to convert the Political Declaration – which is merely both parties’ often conflicting wish-lists – into a trade agreement.

He should also realise that the difficulties in the negotiations so far stem entirely from the EU’s cherry-picking of three issues which it demanded must be addressed before any “free trade” or other trade deal could be discussed. Unwisely Mrs May agreed, over-ruling David Davis.

It was illogical, as it is obvious the Northern Ireland border issue is inextricably linked to a future trade agreement; it negated Michel Barnier’s assertion that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”; and by separating withdrawal from the future relationship, it conflicted with Article 50’s requirement for a single agreement covering both.

Legally, yes, the referendum was advisory, but politically it was not as the whole thrust of David Cameron’s campaign pledge was that the Government would implement the “people’s vote”. Our MPs in our “representative democracy” accepted that by overwhelmingly voting for Article 50; and both major UK parties’ manifestos confirmed it, receiving 82 per cent of the UK vote in the 2017 General Election.

John Birkett,

12 Horseleys Park, St Andrews.

HAVING watched a number of the televised debates in the Commons Chamber on the vexed subject of Brexit, I now wonder if these proceedings are just a monumental waste of time and effort, as they do not appear to have any effect on the subsequent voting outcome.

Everyone speaks from an entrenched position and there is no indication of anyone being influenced to change their mind and subsequent vote by any telling speech from an opposing viewpoint. Any such changes in voting intentions appear to happen exclusively by negotiation or persuasion of one means or another outwith the Chamber. What then is the point of these debates apart from massaging already-inflated egos and ensuring continued employment for those responsible for Hansard? Perhaps these debates could be enlivened by the abolition of vote whipping, with every vote being a free vote to restore the uncertainty inherent in true debating? Certainly a debate on that proposal would at least be interesting.

Alan Fitzpatrick,

10 Solomon’s View, Dunlop.

I READ Richard Mowbray's contribution to the correspondence on the European Union (Letters, January 22) and was struck by the constant deception which has been practised by those in power and their pandering acolytes for decades. The false information broadcast by the Brexiters was by no means a one-off occurrence.

In 1975 we were told that we were joining a trading group called the EEC and to a greater extent that is exactly what it was. Unfortunately, those in power in the UK whether blue or red did not see Europe as a positive. It became common policy to blame any unpopular action they took on the European Union. In this they were aided and abetted by the red tops and Little Englander press which enthusiastically printed their nonsense and made up their own as well (remember the straight bananas furore?). This swelled the ranks of voters who blindly blamed Europe for any perceived disadvantage they experienced. The logical result of this was the rise of racism and anti-Semitism.

Westminster had no interest in working to mould the EU and was seen as a disruptive element standing on the outside throwing insults. The constant bitching about how much our contribution was masked the real net amount which our membership actually cost. The thing Westminster politicians hated was that money paid was returned as grants not to the south-east of England but to rural and regional areas, in which as we all know Westminster has very little interest.

The cynical use of misinformation continued through the 2014 Independence referendum and on to the European referendum. It continues today with Theresa May and Liam Fox making absurd statements about the ease of trade deals, nf which obviously Mr Mowbray has also been duped. Perhaps we should all bear in mind that there were no politicians riding into the valley of death with the Light Brigade.

David Stubley,

22 Templeton Crescent, Prestwick.

A PEOPLE'S Vote is a way out of the Brexit impasse, but only if it is held under different rules from those under which the original vote took place. These rules are fine for General Elections which can be re-run in five years. A referendum is different and as such should operate under different rules – rules which must provide a clear answer.

Before a People's Vote we must set these rules – perhaps a 60/40 vote in favour, for example. Otherwise this impasse could go on interminably.

L McDermott,

1 Fairfield Place, Glasgow.

OH dear, plan B is just plan A minus a few days (“May: second vote a risk to cohesion”, The Herald, January 22).

Dave Biggart,

Southcroft, Knockbuckle Road, Kilmacolm.

CAN the Windrush applicants get their fees back too?

John Hein,

78 Montgomery Street, Edinburgh.

I HAVE just received my personal tax summary for 2017/2018. On the back page there is a breakdown of how the tax I paid contributed to public spending in the tax year. It is not something I have ever looked at before, but since retiring I have a little more time to look at items that pique my interest.

Whilst the amounts that each of us pay in tax differs, I feel sure that the percentage paid to each of the categories will be broadly similar. For instance, the contribution to health was 20 per cent whilst welfare was 25 per cent. No surprises there in the percentage contribution. Interestingly enough, the UK contribution to the EU budget was just 0.69 per cent whilst national debt interest was 6.1 per cent. If my calculations are correct it would seem that the contribution to the EU budget seems to be a bit of a bargain.

Anne-Marie Colgan,

10 Castle Wynd, Bothwell.

Read more: Mike Russell to tell Brussels Scotland wants to stay in EU