Without a general election, the Brexit Party is just an angry mob of protesters

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

“A vote for the Brexit Party is a vote for a WTO Brexit – no ifs, no buts” calls out Richard Tice, the Brexit party chair. He was referring to the upcoming European elections in the UK. This is an interesting position.

The “WTO Brexit” aka “no-deal Brexit” is the one that has consistently been rejected by the UK parliament. It rather looks as though the intention of the Brexit party in the EU elections is to install a group of wrecker MPs. To drive their objectives effectively, a general election will be required, bringing to power a party that can either solely, or with coalition, force this outcome, mandated through a clear manifesto. No existing mainstream party is likely to offer a manifesto of this nature, so this would require the Brexit party to win a general election. Let’s assume that this is currently unlikely.

So, instead of having MEPs trying to drive the very improvement within the EU that many see necessary, we have a group with a futile function, adding to Nigel Farage’s existing bickering from the back of the classroom. If this new party wishes to achieve something real, tangible, long-lasting and with the likely backing of the electorate, it needs to wipe away the intention to install its wreckers in Brussels and put in place people who aim to drive change from within, to work collaboratively rather than destructively and to contribute to the process. They will not be alone. It appears that there will be a great many Eurosceptic MEPs from a number of countries. Now is the opportunity to work progressively to drive the change within the EU that so many recognise is needed, yet the EU leadership is unable to accept.

Only in this way can the Brexit party become one of progressive function rather than an angry mob of protesters without policy. They might want to rethink the name of the party, however.

Karl Keyte
Buckinghamshire

Scottish independence marchers put people off their cause.

As the organiser of Saturday’s “march” in Glasgow is charged with breaching restrictions on the timing of the event, the contest about the numbers involved rumbles on. Leaders claim that 100,000 or more people attended, while the police put the figure at 30,0000-35,000. Some pro-union people claim that the numbers were much smaller. But does it matter?

Everyone knows that there are significant numbers of people in favour of Scotland leaving the UK, and that a minority of those wish to demonstrate their allegiance in public, regardless of the inconvenience they cause to law-abiding citizens. Marching through the streets of a major city with flags does not change the arguments in favour of, or against, a separate Scotland, and disrupting people’s Saturday will scarcely win more converts to the separatist side – possibly the reverse.

Jill Stephenson
Edinburgh

We must not forget Margaret Thatcher’s toxic legacy

Margaret Thatcher’s legacies are often distorted. She broke the coal miners and set brokers and speculators free to import millions of tons of coal and gas. She and her government did nothing to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. And nothing to reduce the impact of climate change.

To reduce public spending she closed caring facilities and secure care homes for the mentally ill and disabled; she and her government pretended to create “care in the community” for these vulnerable people. This was done without intention or effort to establish the essential “care” in the community.

We now have our mentally ill people in prisons or sleeping in our streets. We now ignore them and wonder why they are there.

Her government privatised and sold off national assets and facilities that served the people of our nation and were owned by the people of our nation. Her government “sold” our railways, rail networks, gas, water, electricity, postal, hospital, social and care services, and a host of other assets that belonged to the people of our nation.

She changed a caring decent Conservative party into the “nasty party” that is owned by, and serves, the rich and the greedy.

And that is her residual legacy.

Martin Deighton
Woodbridge, Suffolk

Brexit makes us more vulnerable to the loss of biodiversity and climate change

Brexiteers like to state that economic forecasts are often proved wrong and based on flawed assumptions when they project the harm Brexit would cause the country.

The problem with economic forecasts is that there is a big element of uncertainty – it being impossible to predict if something momentous will come out of the blue to throw them out, such as the global financial crisis of 2007-08. Yet, in rejecting Treasury forecasts, Brexiteers show little restraint themselves in forecasting a rosy future for the UK outside the EU.

But Brexit will make our future more uncertain. Especially given the threat to humanity from the loss of biodiversity and the effects of climate change that, if the tipping point is reached, which could be earlier than expected, would have a catastrophic impact on food production and the global economy. Already, for example, we are seeing a loss of insect pollinators, rising sea levels, devastating winds and rainfalls and the northwards migration of blights and pests.

By remaining in the EU, we’re much better placed to weather the worst. Indeed, we couldn’t be better placed given that the EU, with us as a member, is the world’s largest economic bloc, comprising 28 countries and a market of more than 500 million people. Plus, it is also the top trading partner for 80 other countries (USA has just over 20 in comparison) with its trade agreements delivering on growth and jobs and support for sustainable development.

No wonder Brexiteers like Lord Lawson continue to deny climate change. Because the more people that take it seriously, the more they’re likely to swing against Brexit – knowing we’re better in than out.

Roger Hinds
Surrey