Treating Britain with contempt is no way for the EU to succeed in Brexit negotiations

SIR – As someone involved in trade union negotiations at a senior level for over 30 years, I find the current Brexit performance hard to understand.

To put it at its simplest, we have a situation where Britain has been a member of the EU for many years and during that time has contributed massively to it. Indeed we have been the second largest contributor.

Britain, in a referendum, voted to leave. One would think that the loss of such a major benefactor would give the rest of the EU an incentive to try and persuade Britain to stay.

However what we are seeing are veiled threats and a refusal to talk about the future unless we agree to give the EU ever larger sums of money.

We are seeing the senior negotiators appointed by the European Commission treating us with barely concealed contempt, which I suspect is going to convince even those who voted to remain that leaving is the right decision.

John R Mcerlean

Elstow, Bedfordshire SIR – Is the EU delaying the negotiations in the hope that they will destabilise and weaken the resolve of Britain actually to Brexit?

As they could not force Britain to go back and rerun the vote (as in Ireland), is this is now their next best option?

Robert Bray

Almancil, Faro, Portugal

SIR – The country voted last year in the referendum to leave the European Union. Why have we not left?

There is no provision in the treaty for exit fees; we should pay what we owe to date and leave.

The blackmail of negotiating a fee in the hope of some form of associate membership, which is not provided within the terms of the treaty, is folly. We have already spent too much time and money chasing the impossible.

Europe will be only too keen to make deals after we have left, as they will want to continue to sell us cars, wine and other goods.

Patrick Webb

Wareham, Dorset SIR – Who gave the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development the brief to pass judgment on the “effect a second referendum reversal result would have” (Letters, October 18)?

Why pass comment on this fictitious scenario, and other predictions of Armageddon? It unsettles markets, creates unrealistic expectations for those opposed to our leaving, and gives ammunition to the army of sceptics.

Maybe the British Government needs to reiterate that we are leaving the European Union.

Steven Hope

Droitwich, Worcestershire

SIR – Theresa May should have said: “We will not have a deal at any price.” A £50 billion divorce bill, which is now very likely thanks to Philip Hammond, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, and opposition parties, is equivalent to paying at the current rate for five years after 2019.

I fail to see how those who say “The country did not vote leave to be poorer” justify actions that are driving the divorce bill through the roof.

Dr Kais Al-timimi

Girton, Cambridgeshire

SIR – I voted for Brexit to avoid being governed by unelected Eurocrats in Brussels. I also voted for a Conservative government.

Now, looking at the disorganised and muddled shambles that is the Government’s management of Brexit negotiations, Brussels is starting to look somewhat more attractive.

Tim Buckley

Poole, Dorset

SIR – Why is it that important meetings in Brussels are always held over dinner?

When Jean-claude Juncker is involved, surely this cannot make sense, given his reputation for being less than on the ball even after lunch.

Michael Dollin

Penn, Buckinghamshire