Weird Government thinking behind a deal to give something to both Leavers and Remainers

SIR – David Lidington, the Cabinet Office minister, seemed to say in his Today radio interview yesterday that, because the 2016 referendum was close and “the country was split”, the current negotiations should result in something for everyone.

This was an absurd remark, but if this is the thinking at the highest level of Government, it’s no surprise that a negotiating approach based on such a confused and half-hearted premise has been a failure, even judged by the Government’s very limited objectives. Stephen Richards

Ballymena, Co Antrim

SIR – I was annoyed when the Lords passed an amendment for Parliament to have a final vote on the Brexit deal.

At that time, I trusted that the Prime Minister would deliver her Lancaster House and manifesto pledges. I was afraid that Parliament would vote to block her Brexit deal.

Now that I have learnt of her betrayal of these commitments in favour of the Chequers plan, I am glad that Parliament will get the chance to chuck Chequers. Phillip James Spalding, Lincolnshire

SIR – Boris Johnson’s “call to arms” to the Cabinet (Comment, November 12) was an interesting political manoeuvre – a bit like Fletcher Christian trying to orchestrate his mutiny after first jumping overboard from the Bounty. Brian Mahaffey High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire

SIR – Theresa May and her Cabinet appear to be suffering two delusions.

She believes that, however bad a deal she signs up for, the electorate will forgive her at the next election, rather than vote in a Corbyn government.

Meanwhile, those in the Cabinet believe that their jobs are more important than their duty to the country. I, for one, would not vote for the Conservatives, whoever leads them into the election, because collectively their MPS would have deliberately thwarted what the will of the people voted for. I could not vote for Labour or the Lib Dems, but would abstain if there was no other party I agreed with (such as Ukip). Ken Webb Bardsey, West Yorkshire

SIR – The European Court of Justice is seen not to be independent, but a subset of its members approved as suitably independent could be created by the UK’S Judicial Appointments Commission, under whatever name the UK and rump EU agree to give it. Malcolm Warburton Sandbach, Cheshire

SIR – Is “the People’s Vote” the most irritating phrase of 2018? Richard Holdron Wisbech, Cambridgeshire

SIR – It is important that the so-called People’s Vote is identified as a third referendum. Small wording changes can have a major influence on how people think about a topic (see Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s book, Nudge). Think of the meaning of Brexiters versus Brexiteers.

A second referendum can be painted as an attempt to “thwart the will of the people”, but awareness that this will be a third referendum on EU membership destroys that interpretation.

In the 1975 referendum, the British voted 67 per cent to 33 per cent to stay in the EC (Common Market). Despite this 34 per cent majority, Europhobes spent 40 years pushing for a second referendum. Europhobes cannot complain about another referendum three years after a mere 3 per cent majority. Professor Angus Gellatly Oxford

SIR – Rutland joined Leicestershire in 1974. All went well for some years, until the reality emerged. So we came out and are much better as a result. If Rutland could do it, why can’t Britain? Bob Salmon Greetham, Rutland