I TOTALLY agree with Iain AD Mann (letters, April 24) that the interests of the British people, especially the young, must take precedence over those of Theresa May's Neanderthal backwoodsmen. Like Mr Mann, I'm old and in a few years I'll be dead so the fall-out of Brexit won’t affect me but it will affect my children and grandchildren.

It's deplorable that my contemporaries were able to swamp the referendum and consign succeeding generations to a future they didn't want. Worse still is the Government decision not to allow a second vote when the gruesome details of the final deal are known. That's purely party political and wholly undemocratic.

Those wanting to study, find work or travel face decades of uncertainty. Things will be much tougher for the young trying to plan their own and their family's future than for the typical, ageing Leave voter watching re-runs of Downton Abbey and whining about immigrant workers living down the street.

Rev Dr John Cameron,

10 Howard Place, St Andrews.

JACKSON Carlaw's rather astonishing and unfounded attack on our professional integrity as researchers should not pass without response ("Brexit risks undermining devolution, warn experts", The Herald, April 24). We are senior researchers in our fields, with decades of experience and international reputations; as such, we are happy to discuss and debate our analysis on a serious basis. But if politicians prefer ad hominem attacks – so contributing to a lowering of standards in public debate – rather than engaging with the substance of the issue, it perhaps suggests they do not have a substantive response to make.

Dr Kirsty Hughes, Director Scottish Centre on European Relations, 17 Rintoul Place Edinburgh; Dr Katy Hayward, Reader in Sociology, Queen's University Belfast.

READERS of these Letters Pages know that Richard Mowbray (Letters, April 23) is an economist, a historian and a political scientist; and we now know that he is also a philosopher – and a psychoanalyst, because he can identify a complex of superiority about the people he has issues with. That he does so by belittling, through sarcasm and name-calling, thereby bestowing on himself the defect he accuses others of possessing – a complex of superiority – seems to have bypassed him. As well as name-calling he name-drops. However, I doubt that Jacques Derrida ever said that Europe was “morally superior to the individual nation-states”.

Derrida partly came to his views about Europe because of the ideas he considered and sought to explain, one of which was the notion of democracy; a virtue all states claim but never explain, never mind deliver. George Orwell also considered it in his essay Politics and the English Language, taking the opportunity to bemoan sloppiness in thoughts and language.

All that aside, using Mr Mowbray’s technique, I need to know why the view of “neo-Marxist philosophers”, or the view of a member of “the lefty UK chattering class”, or “the over-riding political objective of the Berlin/Brussels/Paris oligarchy”, is no more valid than the view of, say, a self-elevated laissez-faire economist, a part-time historian and social scientist, and a self-professed philosopher?

I am not an expert on Derrida’s philosophy, but I am prepared to venture that he was more likely than not to have had many ideas (good, bad or indifferent) and few opinions – unlike those who seem to me to have many opinions but no ideas.

P Fabien,

41 Kingsborough Gardens, Glasgow.

WHEN politicians can't get what they want under one name, they simply change the name but keep the intended meaning. This seems to be what is happening with "customs union". The original terms were never clearly defined, even though Nicola Sturgeon used both it and "single market" endlessly. The original meaning of single market was something like "tariff-free trade with the rest of EU but obeying the EU regulations about labelling and small print about contents". That of "customs union" was something like "freedom to strike new trade deals with non-EU countries which are different or better than what the EU itself has".

Thus many people, me included, wanted to be like Norway and be part of the European Free Trade Association obeying single market rules for tariff-free trade, but with no EU interference in agriculture and fisheries. However, the EU insisted that it also included "free movement of EU citizens across borders and in applying for jobs". Thus that doesn't work for us. However single market access, but without free movement for EU citizens (other than Irish citizens) was what we actually wanted. After all, the Prime Minister herself described her goal as "frictionless trade" but without actually being bound by the EU and its goals of ever-closer political and monetary union.

So now politicians seem to have re-named this goal as "a customs union". They seem to think they can finesse this past the EU negotiators and past the general public. If this is what the House of Lords amendment actually means, then why all the opposition to it? Surely this is just a mindless kneejerk "Lords vs People" sloganising? If the Labour policy of "a customs union" turns out to be the same thing, then might there not be a House of Commons majority for it?

Peter MD Gray,

165 Countesswells Road, Aberdeen.

BRITAIN'S loss of influence in the world is likely to accelerate after Brexit.

Recent research on China's thinking has focused on the new world order under the market empire. One of the possibilities for change at the United Nations in fact first came from the East – Singapore – some years ago.

Under this arrangement China would demote the UK hugely, relegate France, reduce political support for the United States, and promote Germany who is a big trading partner of China. The new top table at the UN would be increased from five to seven, with seats going to the US, European Union, China, India, Russia and Brazil and Nigeria.

Impact of the political changes on national economies? Better for some than others.

Ian Jenkins,

7 Spruce Avenue, Hamilton.

TODAY my wife received her Saltire entitlement card, also known as the bus pass. This smartcard scheme is run as a partnership between the Scottish Government, Scotland's local councils and others. After all the brouhaha about UK passports being produced in France, I was interested to note that this card was sent from Hull.

Brian Johnston,

3A Charlotte Avenue, Torrance.