BORIS Johnson’s acolytes hymn praises to his erudition in getting a deal through parliament. I wonder.
Amber Rudd resigned from his Cabinet because there was no work preparing for a deal. All was concentrated on a No Deal.
When Johnson returned to Brussels from his Liverpool hotel meeting with the Taoiseach Leo Varadkar he was overjoyed at getting rid of the dreaded “backstop”, solving the Irish border check problem.
In a TV interview an EU MEP was asked about the excessive congratulations Johnson was getting on this achievement and he replied, in effect, that the alternative was to laugh at him!
At his press conference with Johnson, Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, was, shall we say, celebratory to the point of near incomprehension.
Had we just witnessed the Johnson ego being stitched up by the EU?
Did Varadkar, in his walk with Johnson around the gardens of the Liverpool hotel, provide him with an eureka moment regarding that damn “backstop.” A customs border in the Irish Sea. Guaranteed agreement with the EU – and hence the joyous Mr Juncker.
Never mind Johnson’s rant that no Prime minister could ever agree to such a thing. Never mind that he has just shafted the DUP. Never mind that by allowing Northern Ireland to remain in the customs union and single market.
He had just effectively handed Mr Varadkar the path to Irish reunification.
Never mind the Scots, a handful of miles from Northern Ireland, who voted to stay in the EU. He had got rid of the “backstop”.
ERG and Tories all, rejoice and pay homage.
Bob Harper
Ayr
EVENTS over the past year or so have demonstrated unequivocally that there is no such thing as a “good” Brexit. Boris Johnson’s “deal” only satisfies those Tory dinosaurs who dislike foreigners and believe the British empire was the pinacle of achievements and can be reconstructed if we leave the EU.
Many people who live in struggling areas of the UK, where industry was decimated by the Thatcher government, voted Leave mainly as a protest against successive UK Governments who have ignored their plight. However, these communities have been force-fed with a diet of EU BAD, told the EU is responsible for the deprivation and given false projections of how glorious life is going to be when we leave.
Set this against a backdrop of a small percentage of people getting richer and richer on the back of their austerity exacerbated by the introduction of Universal Credit and it is easy to understand why they voted that way.
Somehow the truth must be delivered to these areas that Brexit of any flavour will be bad for their health. Don’t believe Mr Johnson’s promises of multi-billion-pound spending. If Tories win a majority in the next election, priority one will be tax cuts for the rich.
Mike Underwood
Linlithgow
I BROADLY agree with the letter from Iain WD Forde (October 22). We do have everything we need to be a successful independent country, but all things are dictated by Westminster, who have completely ignored us during the whole Brexit debate, apart from the rebuff from the three judges on proroguing. Mr Johnson is still attempting to move in spite of that ruling by using a form of words.
The Scottish Parliament is in a cleft stick; the Tories effectively nullified the Sewel Convention, which meant that any changes to UK law affecting Scotland had be ratified by the Scottish Parliament, which turned out to be another “form of words” and not binding.
Also there seems to be some confusion over moves in opinion polls – not exactly sure where that is going.
Mr Forde is a Green independence supporter and rightly highlights the environmental risks Westminster is taking. I think he is in the same age group as myself (85, just today!) but is more downbeat than myself. The apparent moves in the polls may well be what Scotland actually wants.
We should not forget that 38% voted to leave the EU; tying the EU vote to the independence vote is conflating the two issues.
Once we attain independence we can decide whether we wish to be in the EU. In my 53 years in the SNP I campaigned in 1975 on the party line “Not on anyone else’s terms”. In 1978 my resolution for the SNP to oppose the EU was defeated at the SNP conference. Over the years the SNP shilly-shallied over membership but decided at one Inverness conference to support joining.
I was opposed because I felt that it was taking power away from one remote foreign power and then handing it over to an even more remote foreign power.
The late Jimmy Halliday (SNP chairman 1956-60, and chairman of the Scots Independent newspaper) pointed out to me that in that Union we would have exactly the same amount of independence as every other country; this convinced me.
Jim Lynch
Edinburgh
I NOTE that Mr Tomkins is at it again, describing the SNP as “abhorrent” and reaffirming yet again that he is happy to sublimate his role as a professor in favour of his more prominent role as a dedicated buffoon. Let me humbly offer several synonyms of the word “abhorrent”: odious, offensive, repellent and revolting, all of which encapsulate the behaviour of the Tories who petulantly left the chamber when Joanna Cherry rose to speak. Once and for all, Mr Tomkins, do you “get it”, or you going to keep digging until your head is below ground level?
Joe Cowan
Balmedie
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here