VARIOUS correspondents express support for a referendum rerun once the terms of the Brexit deal are known (Letters, July 25). One asks witheringly “What is it that the Brexiters are so afraid of?” in relation to a second vote. We have all seen similar questions asked of those who oppose a second independence referendum.

It is always a little troubling when people resort to accusing those who do not agree with them of being “afraid”. Perhaps it is less a case of “fear”, and simply an opinion that such ballots will effectively end up revisiting all the same ground and quite possibly as a result come to the same conclusion. On either the Brexit or independence questions, those keen to hold another vote seem impatient to see it come earlier rather than later. Yet in either case, votes held just shortly after the conclusion of Brexit negotiations would likely see us all still having to base a judgment on the predicted impact of what has been agreed, rather than the actual experience which will unfold over some time, including potentially an extended transition period.

There does appear to be some reluctance amongst those who would like to see the referendum results reversed to allow people time to come to a judgment that the Brexit outcome, whilst not ideal, is proving to be better than expected. Meanwhile opinion polls do not reflect a sudden well of support for the EU, any more than for the prospect of Scotland breaking away from the UK.

Perhaps those reluctant to revisit either issue simply feel such exercises would likely create further discord only to deliver the same outcome.

Keith Howell,

White Moss, West Linton, Peeblesshire.

WE note the letter from the Radical Options for Scotland and Europe collective (July 22), signed by Jim Sillars and others. We in the European Movement in Scotland do not regard it as undemocratic for an electorate to be able to think again if they decide they do not like the consequences of their initial choice, particularly where those emerging consequences differ so markedly from the promises made. The UK Government is riven between those who want a hard-right, deregulatory agenda and those who recognise the importance of a close relationship with the EU. The Labour Party is also badly confused, as comment last weekend demonstrated. The democratic will of the people was silent on this because no manifesto for Brexit was made available to them. On what basis do the authors of the letter believe their vision of Brexit is what voters want or are likely to get?

The Prime Minister’s determination to end freedom of movement and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice means achieving the economic benefits of the single market through a bespoke trade deal is impossible. The negotiations with the EU are already bogged and it is clear there is no outcome as beneficial as our current membership, with the rights and freedoms it gives us as EU citizens. It is for that reason that the European Movement in Scotland is pleased to support the call to think again, in a democratic debate, about Brexit.

Mr Sillars et al claim leaving the EU will promote the interests of working people. It seems illogical that a path that damages our economy, is already leading to inflation, falling investment, migration of jobs and the prospect of public spending cuts– to the detriment of working people and the poorest in our society – should be so warmly embraced by those on the left. It is notable that our call to think again (Letters, July 18) was warmly supported by Scotland’s third sector.

The claim that leaving the EU will allow the UK to promote state support for industry and public procurement misses the point that all effective international trade deals require the Government to enforce rules about public support for industry. The EU has championed workers’ and consumers’ rights and is providing investment support for economic and social goals in the more deprived parts of Europe, including the Highlands and Islands and the older industrial areas of Scotland. It would be foolhardy to believe such benefits are guaranteed post-Brexit.

The fact is, it is decisions taken by successive Governments in the UK about privatisation and economic liberalisation which the writers seems to object to – many other EU countries have maintained publicly-owned organisations in key services such as energy infrastructure, ferries and railways consistent with EU law. Far better for Scotland’s progressive forces to focus on making economic and social progress within the world’s most successful political, economic and social union than expend considerable energy in seeking an uncertain and undoubtedly less secure future outside.

Vanessa Glynn,

Chair, European Movement in Scotland,

91 George Street, Edinburgh.

WITH all the discussion about the financial implications of Brexit, or for making a case for reviewing the whole nonsense, it seems that we have forgotten the whole ethos of a united Europe. Namely, peace after the horrors of the two world wars. There was only 20 years between the two wars, but relative peace since. Something must be working.

Our Brexit result, taken to its conclusion, could just be the start of divisions in Europe, which would undoubtedly please Vladimir Putin and possibly even Donald Trump. A destabilised Europe would play into the hands of all our potential enemies. The EU is far from perfect, but a divided Europe is downright dangerous. There are far too many potential flash points in and around Europe. Witness the ongoing major spat between Turkey and Germany. Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Turkey is now an unstable dictatorship and a possible threat should Europe be weakened by internal strife.

One of the most important decisions for the UK since the end of the Second World War was made by a Prime Minister under pressure from his right wing Eurosceptics and fearful of his position. Maybe we should remember, the referendum was not called for the good of the country, but to save David Cameron's skin. This was quickly followed by another arrogant decision by Theresa May, which also backfired spectacularly. Why should we have any faith in this Government and in particular the Cabinet, which appears to be populated by self-serving back-stabbers more intent on jockeying for position than having any coherent plan for Brexit?

Ian Smith,

111 Dutch House, Kilmarnock Road, Monkton.