Cross-party attempts to secure a soft Brexit will undermine voters’ confidence even further
SIR – You report (June 13) that Cabinet ministers have secretly sought cross-party backing for a “soft Brexit”.
If, as a nation, we have to make concessions on immigration, the single market and the customs union, why did we bother to have the referendum in the first place?
A soft Brexit will leave us with all the disadvantages of being a member of the EU, while conferring none of the advantages. If this is the best deal the Government is now looking for, then I would rather see our notice to leave under Article 50 rescinded.
Adrian Waller
Woodsetts, South Yorkshire
SIR – “Soft Brexit” is code for staying inside the EU in all but name.
Membership of the single market would mean being subject, without the right of veto, to most of the body of European law, including labour law and directives designed to harm the City of London; accepting the supremacy of the European Court over large swathes of our economy; giving up control of our borders, including the right to refuse Eu-born terrorists; and continuing to pay large sums annually into the EU – in effect a tax over and above the price of our exports. Both main political parties rightly rejected staying in the single market at the General Election.
Those seeking to exploit the Government’s difficulties in order to impose such an arrangement are ignoring the decision of the British people on June 23 2016. They risk reopening divisions in the country and tearing the Conservative Party apart.
Patrick Robertson
Founder, Bruges Group Andrew Roberts Mark Slater Robert Agostinelli Robin Birley
SIR – Nobody wants a hard Brexit. The aim should be to achieve a comprehensive free-trade agreement, a frictionless border (particularly in Ireland), and an immigration policy that at least meets the needs of industry, commerce and academia.
If that is not agreed, then it will be because the EU does not want it, fearing that it cannot hold together without punishing Britain. All we want is control of our borders, laws and money – not membership of a supra-national authority.
John Sharp
Great Glen, Leicestershire
SIR – Juliet Samuel (Comment, June 12) says the election result makes a clean Brexit impossible. However, it was never likely that Theresa May would conclude the terms of withdrawal from the EU and a free-trade deal in less than two years. “No deal” was always on the cards. Indeed, we have never heard from Mrs May how she would maintain single market arrangements without a deal.
Membership of the European Economic Area (EEA) offers a route to an eventual clean Brexit. There would be some ongoing (albeit reduced) costs of EEA membership, but this would allow Britain to negotiate free-trade deals with non-eu countries, unencumbered by the common fisheries and agricultural policies.
Once the final details of our withdrawal and post-exit trade deal are achieved, we only have to give 12 months’ notice to depart the EEA.
Neil Voyce
Reading , Berkshire
SIR – A weak Prime Minister, an indecisive Cabinet, a 1922 Committee without guts and an alliance with a party that has strong ties to a militant Orange Order leave the country in the worst position to negotiate Brexit.
I hate to say it, but we need another General Election and we need it now.
Lt-col Richard King-evans
Hambye, Manche, France SIR – Theresa May says: “I got us into this – I’ll get us out” (report, June 13).
Have I missed the press release announcing that she has changed her name to Houdini?
Malcolm Busby
Pitlochry, Perthshire
SIR – After the EU referendum, we got Remoaners. After the General Election, it seems we have Conplainers. Stop the sniping and let Mrs May get on with governing.
Kirsten Linning-newman
Purley on Thames, Berkshire
SIR – Mrs May is rightly described as “in office but not in power”. However, the Tories dare not replace her because a new Prime Minister would have to seek a mandate at a General Election, which would almost certainly result in a Labour victory. Mrs May should therefore remain as a Prime Minister resembling the chairman of a board until she can be safely replaced.
The Cabinet should focus on ensuring that a small programme of targeted policies is agreed, which can be supported and adhered to by all Tory MPS. A senior minster should be charged with explaining clearly the economic and social aims of the Government. If that means ditching the manifesto pledges, so be it.
Tom Bliss
Fulbeck, Lincolnshire
SIR – It is totally misleading for party leaders to declare an end to austerity. With government borrowing now in excess of £1.7trillion and rising, such a pledge is not in their power. Since the crash in 2008, we have not faced up to reality. The main factor not addressed is the unaffordability of defined benefit pension schemes in the private and especially the public sectors.
Our leaders should be honest and admit that austerity is not over. Sooner or later we shall have to pay the price. Stuart G Pullen
Taunton, Somerset
SIR – The election result, though catching most people out, serves to confirm that the electorate generally gets the outcome it wants.
We are not impressed by those who call elections misguidedly (Mrs May in 2017, Ted Heath in 1974), or by those who are prematurely triumphal (Neil Kinnock in 1992). We punish those who, like Nicola Sturgeon, seek to abuse our historical identity, even if this contradicts our normal political affiliation. We admire those who campaign with authenticity (John Major in 1992, Ruth Davidson in 2017) but are not taken in by crackpot economics (Jeremy Corbyn in 2017).
It should be noted that both Tory and Labour totals were boosted by the decline of minor parties. There would probably have been a Tory majority but for the unusually large student vote, which is a group that has yet to come to terms with the realities of a market economy.
David Thomson
Leeds, West Yorkshire
SIR – The Conservatives offered no vision for the young.
In the Fifties, Harold Macmillan offered the idea of a property-owning democracy, but today this is beyond the hopes of many young people. Housing is a big issue.
The Conservatives seem not to realise they have been losing a cultural war – badly. A generation may have been cemented to Labour.
Christopher Marks
Horsham, West Sussex
SIR – Charles Moore (Comment, June 12) maintains that the motivation for many young people was Mr Corbyn’s promise to abolish tuition fees.
This was not the case with my three undergraduate grandchildren, who have all taken out student loans. Their main reason for voting as they did was Mr Corbyn’s refreshing politeness. They were tired of being talked down to by the Tory machine and felt that good manners were far more likely to succeed in the Brexit negotiations than the antagonism and aggression so apparent in the Conservative agenda.
They wanted a soft Brexit, hoping this would mean a continuation of many EU benefits for the young – among them Erasmus funding for educators. To misunderstand the motives behind the surge of young voters will not help the Tory cause.
Rohaise Thomas-everard
Dulverton, Somerset
SIR – Like Stephen Martin of the Institute of Directors (Business, June 12), I was disheartened to see that the only reference the Prime Minister made to “prosperity” in her Downing Street statement was to emphasise the need to share it rather than create it.
My Corbyn would raid the creators in order to share wealth, thus leading to agonising economic depression and impoverishment in a very short time. Ian J Burley
Cookham-on-thames, Berkshire
SIR – Many Labour supporters are aghast at the idea of the Tories doing a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party to form a Government, as they find many of its policies distasteful.
However, there is an alternative. Labour MPS could respect the will of the electorate by promising not to vote down a Conservative Queen’s Speech.
Glen Thompson
Oswaldkirk, North Yorkshire
SIR – Members of the Conservative Party in Northern Ireland should be appalled by the negotiations between the Prime Minister and the DUP, and speak out against any alliance.
First, a deal between the parties will destroy the Conservatives’ credibility as champions of inclusive, liberal values. The Prime Minister has given assurances that she will urge the DUP to modify its policies on LGBT rights and other issues, but her influence is now much less.
Secondly, it will make the restoration of devolved government impossible. By strengthening the DUP’S hand, it will remove the need for it to compromise in negotiations with the other parties in Northern Ireland. In addition, the Government will lose its ability to act as an honest broker in negotiations. The election results in Northern Ireland show how polarised our society has become, due in large part to the arrogance and incompetence of the DUP.
Thirdly, the election was called to strengthen the Prime Minister’s hand in the Brexit negotiations. The opposite has happened. The Government is now weaker – and beholden to one of the most reactionary parties in Europe. A deal with the DUP can only weaken our hand in the negotiations – and cause terrible damage to our reputation.
Regrettably, the only honourable course for the Prime Minister is to announce her intention to resign, so that a leadership contest can take place and a new leader can be installed at the party conference. In the interim, she should begin negotiations with the EU before handing over to her successor. The new leader should then seek a fresh mandate from voters.
The Northern Ireland Conservatives have struggled to break through electorally, in part because we lack a distinctive local identity. Now is the time for us to speak in a clear and independent voice.
Adam Moore
South Belfast Conservatives
SIR – The Government is becoming a farce if the Queen’s Speech has to wait for the ink to dry on goatskin parchment (report, June 13).
I’m sure the Queen is capable of reading her speech from an ipad if necessary, especially if it allows her to continue enjoying Royal Ascot. Peter Saunders
Salisbury, Wiltshire
SIR – If the Queen’s Speech is to be postponed from Monday June 19 to “a few days later”, this would imply that the Garter Ceremony, originally programmed for the same day, was cancelled for no good reason.
Royal Ascot follows in the same week, from Tuesday to Saturday, so is the Queen expected to open Parliament in a quick half hour on any of those mornings? Perhaps if the Prime Minister had tried a little forward planning, we would not now be in this pickle. Penelope Wade
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire