I CANNOT let the noble Lord Kerr, which is how they address each other in the House of Lords, get away with his misspeak in the debate in that House as quoted in your report (“Lords vote to keep custom union option in first defeat for May’s flagship Brexit Bill”, The Herald, April 19) that no one can argue that the country voted knowingly in the EU referendum to leave the Customs Union. Certainly I can, as it was common knowledge at the time.

Anyone who had sufficient interest in the outcome of that referendum knew that for example from watching, in the lead-up to it, the Andrews Neill and Marr interrogating on separate occasions various senior politicians such as David Cameron, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson and Liam Fox as to whether a vote to leave the EU would involve leaving the customs union, and also the single market . All their answers were absolutely clear that that would be the case in the event of a vote to leave.

To put it mildly, it is simply astonishing that Lord Kerr was apparently unaware of that.

Alan Fitzpatrick,

10 Solomon’s View,

Dunlop.

KEITH Howell (Letters, April 19) dismisses the current Brexit constitutional stand-off between Holyrood and Westminster as just trouble-making by the SNP to further the cause of independence. This reductive interpretation does not stand up to scrutiny: throughout this dispute, Nicola Sturgeon has acted jointly with the First Minister of Wales, and the Welsh Assembly has also passed a Continuity Bill.

I am not aware of anyone suggesting that Carwyn Jones and Welsh Labour are furthering the cause of Welsh independence by pursuing similar policies to those of Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP.

Personally, I hope that the unfolding fiasco of Brexit eventually does lead to a growth in support for independence, so that we may escape its consequences.

But whether it does or not, the SNP, together with its political allies, is duty bound to oppose Theresa May and her Tory Brexiters whose policies so clearly seek to roll back the devolution settlement.

Paddy Farrington,

46 Marchmont Road,

Edinburgh

KEITH Howell says “UK-wide frameworks are essential to enable sensible arrangements across the UK after Brexit.” This assertion has been used over and over by politicians and journalists to justify Westminster’s (allegedly) temporary takeover of devolved powers.

However “UK-wide frameworks” can only mean one thing.

The same thing that it always means.

The devolved Governments falling into line with England. Even where that means falling out of line with Europe.

Mary McCabe,

25 Circus Drive,

Glasgow.

YET another economic forecast was published this week which modelled the probable negative effects of Brexit on the UK economy. This study, undertaken by Professor Jonathon Portes, an economist at King’s College, London, indicated that even Theresa May’s preferred option for Brexit will cost the UK £23 billion a year, £442 million a week.

The most favourable option, ignoring ones dreamt up by the more ardent Brexiters and which have no chance of success, will cost £262m a week. The price of no deal will be a staggering £81bn a year. Rather than £350m a week extra for the NHS, we will probably have more than £350m less.

Now you can argue that economic forecasting is no better than putting a finger in the wind. If this is the case then there should be as many forecasts showing how well the UK will do after Brexit as there are forecasting economic doom.

The only people I can see who think we will be better off are a handful of rich Tory MPs who started the whole Brexit nonsense. These individuals will probably, at the expense of the rest of us, increase their incomes one way or another.

Then why is it that so many people in Parliament are prepared to play Russian roulette with the UK economy? Apart from the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, only a handful of Labour and Tory MPs seem to be able to admit the economic crisis that will soon develop if Brexit happens.

Why can’t Parliament accept what seems to be the inevitable? The Brexiters bleat on about “democracy”. Surely it not difficult to accept that democracy can make mistakes, that walking into an economic midfield without first checking where the mines might be is somewhat rash and duping the public into thinking that things will be better might be a more than little dishonest?

If you accept this then the solution has to be another referendum once the full deal is known. Why won’t the two big parties accept this? It can only

be because the leaders of these parties are afraid that the result would be different second time around.

Ditching Brexit would be huge relief to many MPs and, probably, to a more informed population of the UK in general.

If the answer is still Brexit then so be it. At least the vote would have been informed by facts rather than decided on by the whims of a limited number of wealthy individuals.

John Palfreyman,

The Neuk,

Caddam Road,

Coupar Angus,

Perthshire.

I REALISED we were in serious trouble when Liam Fox, the general practitioner whom Theresa May appointed International Trade Secretary, claimed Brexit trade deals would be ‘the easiest in human history’. As someone who has actually worked in international trade with a pharmaceutical giant, I knew that was disingenuous baloney.

I fear our farmers are about to find just how difficult it is to negotiate a trading framework. While we will follow EU rules during the transition period, we won’t be an EU state and other countries are not bound to recognise us as such for the purposes of existing EU trade deals giving our farmers access to their markets.

But the real problems will begin when we are cut loose to face the competition of low-cost agricultural nations. Also trade agreements with advanced nations will see taxes on UK farm exports. I don’t want to sound too gloomy but the fact is, without the Common Agricultural Policy many of our farms are simply unviable.

Rev Dr John Cameron,

10 Howard Place,

St Andrews.