From: Alan Mumby, Rodley, Leeds.
FINALLY the Leader of the Opposition agrees to a General Election now that the EU27 have approved a “flextension” of Article 50 that could last up to January 31, 2020.
Despite his consistent and infuriating agenda to only support an election with a No Deal Brexit off the table, I fail to see what has actually changed based on the latest developments?
In real terms, the true extension is surely more accurately timed at around five weeks, when the timescale takes into account the period of dissolution of Parliament for the election and the Christmas holidays. Furthermore, if the election returns, as I expect, no overall majority, we all climb back aboard the merry-go-round, with slightly different personnel but still with the same dark Brexit cloud hanging over us.
To avoid this gloomy scenario, I urge the electorate to help bring back some much needed confidence in our broken democratic society.
The best way to do this is to see Jeremy Corbyn and his inner circle, whose agenda to turn the UK into a hardline socialist state with a dangerous Marxist dictator at the wheel, for what they really are – unfit and untrusted to govern.
From: Brian H Sheridan, Lodge Moor, Sheffield.
SIR Bernard Ingham reports that words fail him “when it comes to the Scottish Nationalists’ negative approach to the Union” and the lack of logic “in their wanting independence from the English but subservience to Brussels” (The Yorkshire Post, October 30).
It is no mystery to me. I believe that the Scottish National Party is motivated less by politics than by a visceral antagonism towards the English. Surely they don’t think we get a better deal than them.
I sense that there has always been some Scottish empathy towards the “Continent” and particularly France which is reciprocated by the French. My guess is that in sporting contests, a probable majority of Scots would want France to beat England and most French would smirk in the unlikely event of Scottish success over the English. I would also put it to your columnist that the perceived “impressive display of vindictiveness and Ill-conceived contempt of the EU towards Britain” is understandable considering some of the language they hear coming from England.
From: Chris Broome, Hackthorn Road, Sheffield.
IT is really striking how many letters from people supporting Brexit stick to the themes that MPs are apparently defying the will of the people and that we will have control of our own destiny once we are free of EU laws. So little is said about exactly how we will bring about a brighter future once out. Liz Truss (The Yorkshire Post, October 26) describes how a trade deal with the United States would benefit many UK exporters. That is fine but she fails to mention that it will be virtually impossible to secure such a deal without weakening our environmental standards and workers protections.
Other ministers have claimed these will not be compromised in any trade negotiations. If so, we are unlikely to get many deals, especially with the US which will want it to put “America First” and primarily provide export opportunities for its own companies.
Parliament has been right to stop a hard Brexit, not only because it would prevent us maintaining good relations with the EU, but also because grossly exaggerated promises have been made about our trading prospects when and if we leave.
Overcrowding is a big issue
From: Terry Morrell, Willerby.
YOUR correspondent Alan Haig is absolutely correct in that we have become over populated. That is why we have a housing shortage, pressurised NHS, traffic congestion, loss of countryside, pressure on education facilities and so on.
That is why voters should be exceptionally cautious at the election. Do we need free movement of people? Is it necessary to get involved in an EU army? Can we afford to hand over £39bn to the unelected EU? Should we allow our courts to be under the EU?