Surely it is time for reality to take hold in relation to Brexit. Business leaders, and even ministers, continually refer to the “adverse effects of Brexit and how to offset them”. There is only one way – stop Brexit (“May has neither the strength nor the skill to lead us out of Brexit shambles”, Editorial).
Michel Barnier has stated, and you have reiterated, that the current UK position on negotiations with the EU is totally unrealistic. Indeed, it is nothing short of embarrassing.
We are trying to claim that we will be “better off” leaving the EU, but also admitting that we cannot afford to and need EU help in transition, allowing us to “cherry-pick” what we want from them. Why should they help us while we are trying to set up trade deals elsewhere that disadvantage them?
There are two realistic choices – remain in the EU or leave and take our chances in the world, standing on our own feet. I hope it will end up being the former and I think that when faced with reality (rather than the current fantasy) the majority of the British public would agree.
Public opinion is perhaps already starting to turn.
It is often said that the responsibility of MPs is to “respect” the referendum result. Clearly, it should be considered seriously, but we also elect MPs to give advice and guidance. The vast majority of MPs, along with business leaders, the governor of Bank of England etc, believe in remaining in the EU.
Why, unlike the minority who want “Brexit at all costs”, are they afraid to speak out? Putting politics and self-protection issues aside, ministers should come clean and stop peddling the pretence of a totally unrealistic Brexit deal.
Pro-Remain MPs should exert pressure to do so and the sooner it happens, the less it will cost us all.
Ken Hickson
Caddington
Bedfordshire
Your leader last week identifies many things that Britain did not vote for in the EU referendum – lower living standards, slacker environmental protection, a contemptible immigration policy and so on – and asks: “By what twisted reasoning… hard Brexit Tories claim a mandate for forcing their extremist views on the majority of voters?” On another page, Toby Helm (“Is this divided Brexit parliament up to the challenge?”, In Focus) identifies 200 or so MPs as “resolute Leavers”, happy to follow the fanatics out of the single market and customs union.
Imagine the referendum result had gone the other way. Would the Remainers, cock-a-hoop at their 52% to 48% victory, have claimed that the settled will of the British people was not only to stay in the EU but also to join the euro and the Schengen zone, while giving up the rebates and opt-outs, regardless of the economic and social consequences? I think not, but this is the mirror image of the stance of the hard Brexiters, driving what passes for the government’s negotiating strategy.
John Filby
Ashover
Derbyshire
I read with interest your article about opposition to a hard Brexit with a soft Brexit. You are unable to get to grips with the politics of devolution and still see it through the Westminster/English prism.
Scotland, the country to the north of England, not merely another region of England, voted in every constituency to stay, therefore, the government of Scotland, and all the other parties, if they actually believed their job is to represent their constituents and not the three mother English parties, should only be focused on remaining completely in the EU, whatever that stakes, including supporting the Scottish freedom movement and independence in the EU.
Rather than reflect this national difference, and the reality of the vote last year, you try to fit the round shape of Scotland’s vote into the square of English Brexit.
Robert Doig
Bo’ness
Falkirk