Will Theresa May take back control?

It is heartening that Theresa May, our next Prime Minister, accepts that Brexit means Brexit with no further referendum, trumping the local vote to remain in the European Union. Her promise to appoint a Brexit negotiator is also a unifying move.

Her one contribution to the Brexit debate that I recall, in an otherwise invisible stance that lacked conviction, was that we should come out of the European Convention on Human Rights. Now, in her interview in last week’s Maidenhead Advertiser, she is backtracking on this one point of conviction, apparently because there is not a parliamentary majority for it. I would remind her that neither is there a parliamentary majority for Brexit.

If nothing else was clear from the referendum campaign, the one point hammered home was that Brexit meant taking back control of UK governance and law making. Control means an end to EU law trumping UK law, and this must surely include the European Convention on Human Rights?

Keith Hall

Maidenhead

With the chaos that the public’s vote on the referendum has created, and the subsequent turmoil among the politicians who were also elected by the public, I am more than grateful for the feeling of stability, and consistency that the non-elected royal family members give me.

Gillian Cook

Market Harborough

David Cameron has announced that Parliament will vote on 18 July whether to proceed with building four new Trident missile carrying submarines. He is presumably doing so now, firstly, before the massive additional cost of relocation to England post a now looming Scottish independence becomes clear and, secondly, to try and enhance our standing in Europe post-Brexit. I question how much military sense lies behind the decision to seek approval to proceed.

In light of the Chilcot report criticising the then-government for failing to make proper threat intelligence assessments, should the current Government not clearly lay out what threats justify committing to this massive expenditure on nuclear forces when senior naval officers have only recently told it that we do not have enough frigates to wage even a conventional war?

Does the Government not need to tell us how they intend to counter an aggressive Russian move in the Baltic region short of launching into nuclear war? Do we have the conventional forces to do so or are we now entirely dependent on Trident?

Robert Forsyth

Deddington

With Westminster in turmoil it is vital that if the Scottish government wants to protect its place in the EU or single market it acts quickly.

Theresa May, the next Prime Minister, has said that she won’t trigger Article 50 until the end of the year, but once the new Prime Minister is in place and the Brexit unit sets out proposals for the talks, Scotland needs to have its proposals ready.

If the EU and UK then agree that Scotland can stay in the EU or single market, then Scotland would not only shelter itself from the worst impacts of Brexit, but also start to take advantage of the considerable economic benefits that would accrue to a Scotland which is still part of the EU.

If such an option is dismissed by the EU and/or UK Government (which has been the position of the latter to date), then the only option available is that of independence.

Time is limited for the holding of any such referendum on this issue, with the UK out of the EU potentially by January 2019. Talks on the UK’s future relationship with the EU would still be ongoing after we have left, and may take some time, so Scotland would be left out in the cold.

That is unless we act quickly, and that means an independence referendum by the middle of next year, which would mean that the UK would be leaving the EU with Scotland potentially still within as the successor state.

To delay holding an independence referendum is simply not an option, as it would mean Scotland being forced to leave, only to then have to re-join with the considerable rigmarole that process entails.

Alex Orr

Edinburgh