Britain still has time to substitute a Brexit plan that respects the wishes of the electorate

SIR – Nick Timothy (Comment, July 19) asserts that “we cannot turn back the clock to undo mistakes already made” in the Brexit negotiations.

Why? We still have ample time to reinstate a constructive and mutually beneficial Lancaster House-style offer. If the EU rejects this we should simply call its bluff and leave without any initial deal, taking our money with us.

This might indeed cause disruption, but it would be on both sides, and the blow to Britain would be cushioned by the £40 billion saved.

More importantly, if we did leave without a deal, Brussels would lose all leverage over us, yet would almost certainly be forced back to the table by angry member states. Even if Michel Barnier and others still insisted on cutting off their noses to spite their member states’ faces, we would find a way not only to cope but to prosper. Nigel Henson

Farningham, Kent

SIR – I agree with Philip Johnston (“The best option is for Britain to stay in the EEA – or risk meltdown”, Comment, July 19)”. I would add three further points. First, this would be a reversion to the status quo ante – the position Britain enjoyed before joining the then EEC. Thus it can be credibly presented as honouring the vote to leave the EU, rather than a fudge.

Secondly, it is an off-the-shelf package that will not involve us in warfare with the EU Commission, which is far better at it than we are.

Thirdly, it can be sold as an interim position that buys the time we evidently require to see whether we can eventually secure a bespoke deal.

Had this strategy been pursued successfully two years ago, we would not have found ourselves in the present mess. Rejoining the EEA or the European Free Trade Association may not be an ideal outcome, but politics is the art of the possible. David Molian

Biddenham, Bedfordshire

SIR – Ken Stevens (Letters, July 18) is right to question William Hague’s suggestion that there would be no arrangements for aircraft to land without a Brexit deal.

An agreement permitting Britain to continue to participate in the single EU aviation market is in the clear interests of all concerned, except the Commission and certain airlines that may see competitive advantage.

If these narrow-minded interests prevail, and there is no agreement, British airlines will no longer have the right conferred by EU law to fly between any two points in the EU.

Yet it is unthinkable that services between Britain and other EU member states will cease, not only because of the commercial interests involved, but also because there will still be a legal basis for such services, in two ways.

First, under the International Civil Aviation Organisation/chicago Convention system the legal basis for air services between two states derives from bilateral air services agreements. Those concluded between Britain and each of the other EU states, prior to EU membership, are still substantially in existence (although they have been dormant while overtaken by EU law) and will come back into life to provide a legal basis for at least some services.

Furthermore, the continuation of services may be accepted on an informal basis, pursuant to the international legal and diplomatic concept of “comity and reciprocity”. There was no bilateral agreement between France and the US from 1992 to 1998, but during this period services continued as before, on this basis.

Incidentally, Britain’s membership of Eurocontrol will not be affected by Brexit, as it is not an EU institution.

What must be resolved is Britain’s participation in the EU “single sky” (in which it currently plays a major part), not least because of the volume of air traffic between the EU and North America passing through its airspace.

Common sense points to continued participation, but there has been little evidence of common sense in the Commission’s position. John Balfour

London W4