If Theresa May cannot deliver on Brexit she will lose her core supporters Bird-friendly energy

SIR – As she fine-tunes her forthcoming speech on Brexit and ponders the divisions in her Cabinet, Theresa May should be aware that if she fails to deliver our exit from the single market, the customs union and the rule of the European Court of Justice then many millions of people will not vote Conservative again.

She will lose the hard core of the party, and deliver the country to Jeremy Corbyn and his hard-left government.

Sheila Ellison

Thatcham, Berkshire

SIR – You are right that the Prime Minister “must clarify her own stand on Brexit” (leading article, September 19), and one hopes that she will do so during her speech in Italy this Friday.

However, the danger is that her stance may be one of appeasement rather than strength. That is why the Foreign Secretary’s article in

The Daily Telegraph last Saturday was so important and why its timing was actually exquisite. Thanks to her ill-advised decision to call a general election, Mrs May has diminished her own authority as Prime Minister. She would do well to embrace Boris Johnson’s optimism and determination, in order to direct Brexit negotiations from the position of strength which is the reality of Britain’s situation relative to the EU.

John Waine

Nuneaton, Warwickshire

SIR – Arguments for a “hard Brexit” start to unravel when they are articulated by politicians who advocate a short transition period after April 2019. These politicians ignore the practical impacts of international commerce. The British Retail Consortium (BRC) has warned that leaving the EU without a tariff deal would see shoppers face an average price increase of 22 per cent in everyday food products, with cheese, for example, up 30 per cent and tomatoes up 20 per cent.

This forecast is based on the impact of World Trade Organisation (WTO) tariffs and ignores the additional inflationary effect of an everweakening domestic currency.

However, with up to 16,000 trucks using the port of Dover every day, many containing perishable foods, and with no infrastructure to inspect cargo and paperwork under WTO rules, the BRC’S line of argument falls away, as there won’t be much food left on shelves anyway.

Paul Bendit

Arlington, East Sussex

SIR – I am at a loss to understand the apparent terror of company executives over the possibility of a “cliff-edge” exit from the single market and customs union.

By the time we leave the EU in March 2019 they will have had two years and nine months to prepare for Brexit. If they haven’t got all their ducks in a row by then, frankly they have no right to the positions they hold and deserve to go to the wall.

John Todd

Stoke-on-trent, Staffordshire

SIR – We warmly welcome the recognition in Ambrose Evanspritchard’s article on offshore wind (Business, September 14) of the need for a debate around our ecological duty to the North Sea.

It is vital for the protection of our struggling wildlife that Britain, as well as our European neighbours, pursues an energy transition that is in harmony with nature.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds considers that there can be space for renewable energy and wildlife to thrive together, but there are significant ecological data gaps that need to be filled before we will fully understand the impact of the extensive expansion of wind energy in the North Sea, and how we can avoid or minimise that impact.

Britain may have won the “zeroemission lottery”, but rushing ahead and spending its winnings with abandon is unlikely to end well.

Simon Marsh

Head of sustainable development, RSPB Sandy, Bedfordshire