While the Tories chose austerity, Portugal decided to invest – and its economy is now booming

It is intriguing to note that Portugal’s budget deficit fell to 0.5 per cent of gross domestic product in 2018, the lowest level since the country returned to democracy 45 years ago.

This clearly demonstrates that there is an alternative to austerity as the deficit has fallen from 11.2 per cent of GDP in 2011 when Portugal negotiated a €78bn bailout with the EU and the International Monetary Fund.

The reduction is mainly driven by an increase in government revenues, including taxes and social security contributions reflecting economic growth and rising employment.

Some other eurozone countries expressed alarm when the centre-left Socialist government, with the support of the Communist Party and Left Bloc, took power in 2015 on an anti-austerity platform.

However, a series of government budgets raised taxes and restored civil servants’ salaries, eased a surtax on employees’ incomes and breathed new life into the welfare system.

So, while we continue to pursue an austerity agenda in the UK, what Portugal has demonstrated, despite concerns over the economic policies it is pursuing, is that there is another way.

Rather than blindly following an austerity agenda, the example set by Portugal is something we in the UK would be well-advised to take note of.

Alex Orr
Edinburgh

Amongst all the Brexit madness in the House of Commons, who is looking after the electorate’s best interests? Should we not expect the government of the day to undertake serious due diligence given the enormity to the EU?

The only test the current government is applying is whether it delivers the 2017 referendum result (that was far from decisive and probably dubious, it now emerges). A responsible government should answer these questions also:

Most political struggles result in policies that tip life’s balance to favour winners at the expense of losers. In the case of Brexit, please remind me who are the winners? It seems clear now that every single one of us will all be losers.

Charles Bradshaw-Smith
Burton upon Trent

The government’s Brexit policy has been repeatedly rejected by parliament. With the current division of opinion between MPs, the best we can hope for is the Brexit deal that the least number of politicians oppose.

That does not need to be the best for Britain and its economy, nor the best for the British people – just the least offensive to the warring factions in parliament.

And that is what we would be stuck with because of the time pressures, deadlines and sheer stress on government. The people of Britain and those yet born deserve better.

Surely it makes much more sense to step back and take proper stock of the whole picture, so that decisions can be made in a much calmer, less frenetic environment. When a computer malfunctions and does not work properly, the usual remedy is to press the reset button which takes the machine back to a time when it was working effectively.

Revoking Article 50 does just that. It gives us all time to stop and think. It is generally agreed that Article 50 was invoked too soon, that the government and its officials were not properly prepared.

It is not a betrayal of any referendum: it is dealing with the way that the referendum was handled which is what has got us into this mess.

Does such a rational common sense strategy reflect the will of the people? Currently 5.8 million signatures on the parliamentary petition to Revoke Article 50 suggest that is so. The petition to leave without a deal has over 5 million fewer votes.

One thing that both Leave and Remain supporters are agreed upon is that Brexit has been incredibly poorly managed. Much of this is down to Article 50 being invoked too soon before the government, civil servants and parliament were properly prepared and certain of the way forward.

Revoking Article 50 gives the country time to step back and make a considered, unpressurised decision on the way forward.

Andrew Milroy
Trowbridge, Wiltshire

I have not changed my opinion and feel my worst fears were justified by the current meltdown of the “democratic process”.

David Cameron should be forced to take a choice of resident governor (with zero staff) of

Tim Colman
Keyworth, Nottinghamshire

Reading John Murray’s letter I had a profound realisation. He’s right about the nature of dissatisfaction leading up to the referendum. As an ardent Remain supporter, and having lived across Europe, I have often considered what I would lose, but rarely considered the ephemeral feeling of hope that could be lost by Leave voters if the result was overturned.

As Remainers, we can’t keep telling people “you were duped by these hack frauds, you’ve been swindled into self-sacrifice like the oysters in The Walrus and The Carpenter”. All some of these people have is hope, to challenge that without a plan for where to go next is insulting and destabilising.

We need to visualise an end state for the whole nation; remember that there is a big difference between what you want to achieve and the opposite to what you don’t want to achieve.

Leavers, this jock promises to focus more on a positive way forward; hopefully others will join me.

JW Fincham​
Glasgow

It occurs to me that there is some irony in the voting results of the referendum. The areas most deprived in the UK were the ones who voted in the main to leave, yet it is into many of these areas (the northeast, Cornwall, Wales) that Europe invested billions to assist them out of that deprivation. They then voted to leave the very institution that invested in them, persuaded by arguments from factions of a government which had largely abandoned them to austerity.

If we do get the chance of a Final Say referendum, perhaps this should be pointed out?

Kate Hall
Leeds