A disastrous Brexit deal has followed a disastrous election because Theresa May will not listen
SIR – I have now have come to the reluctant conclusion that Theresa May has to go. The reason is very simple.
The farce of the last unnecessary and disastrous general election was caused by her listening almost exclusively to her now disgraced special advisers, rather than to the Cabinet, her MPS, the party or election specialists. She said she had learnt her lesson. She clearly hasn’t. Brian Cooke
Chairman, Beckenham Conservatives Beckenham, Kent
SIR – People in power who demonstrate resilience are generally admired. However, if that doggedness is not accompanied by a sensitivity to criticism then it morphs into delusion – a trait seldom considered virtuous in the personality of a leader.
On Wednesday, nearly two-thirds of MPS passionately rejected the EU Withdrawal Agreement brokered by Mrs May’s ministers and civil servants. A Sky poll revealed that a mere 14 per cent of the population favour the “deal” over no deal or no Brexit.
Yet in her press conference that evening the Prime Minister proclaimed: “I believe with every fibre of my being that the course I have set out is the right one for our country and all our people.”
To confuse stubbornness of this kind with strength of character, and to allow that errant perspective to trump the majority view in Parliament, is a mindless violation of democracy. Brian G Birkhead
Ascot, Berkshire
SIR – During her interview on LBC yesterday morning, Theresa May was at pains to underline the importance of collective Cabinet responsibility as the means of government in Britain. This was in response to calls for a free vote on her Brexit deal.
However, Mrs May needs to realise that collective Cabinet responsibility works both ways. During the 2017 general election campaign, the Cabinet was frozen out of any manifesto input and both of her former Brexit secretaries have been bypassed during the Brexit negotiations. Thus it would appear that the Prime Minister only applies the mantra of collective Cabinet responsibility when it suits her. Eddie Hooper
Gravesend, Kent
SIR – The EU has won and Mrs May has come away with a bad deal, which she is trying desperately to convince us is in the nation’s best interest. She has closed her mind to the dire situation in which the country now finds itself.
The reality is bleak and the options few. The likelihood of the deal being agreed by Parliament is slim and the lessons of the past two years show that even negotiating a reinstatement of EU membership is fraught with danger; both leave an easy opportunity for Jeremy Corbyn to mount a successful challenge to the Government.
The only remaining option that can now be guaranteed, and which might save the Government, is to prepare for a WTO deal as a matter of urgency, following which we can develop trade agreements – including agreements with the EU – from a position of strength. We need a strong, decisive and authoritative leader. Mrs May is not that leader. She must go now. Barry Goldman
Storrington, West Sussex
SIR – Shortly after the referendum, you published a letter from me pointing out that David Cameron, a Remainer, had resigned as prime minister and Theresa May, a Remainer, had become Prime Minister. I asked if I had missed something.
Now I know that I hadn’t. Sean Putnam
Wellingborough, Northamptonshire SIR – Mrs May has done her very best for the United Kingdom. I cannot think of anyone else in Parliament who could get a better deal. It may not be what I thought I voted for but, looking back, I didn’t realise then how intertwined the UK was with the EU.
I believe in Theresa May with every fibre of my body; there is no one better to run this country in this time of crisis. Dorothea Barnes
Southend-on-sea, Essex
SIR – I am surprised that Mrs May likened herself to Geoffrey Boycott at her press conference.
On the fourth day of the second Test against New Zealand in 1978, Boycott wasn’t after the quick runs required to win but seemed more interested in his own Test averages.
After two English wickets fell, Botham batting at four came in and deliberately ran Boycott out. According to cricket folklore, the livid Boycott cried: “What have you done, what have you done?”
Botham’s response, apparently, was “I’ve run you out, you c---.”
“I couldn’t look at him,” Botham later added. “I cracked up and had to go for a walk around the back of the umpire.” David Brinkman
Poole, Dorset
SIR – The Conservatives now face an existential crisis. Thanks to their “Mrs Boycott”, they have failed to be bold enough to win a proper Brexit deal. They face an unenviable and selfinflicted choice: either bin Mrs May and her deal in their own confidence vote, and install someone who will firmly deliver Brexit (whether deal or no deal), or let Mrs May stagger on and ultimately fail to get her ill-judged deal through the Commons.
The result of the latter outcome will be that her Government will end up losing a confidence vote in the House and we will have a general election, in which the Conservatives will be annihilated for their own evident incompetence.
Now is the time for even Remainer Conservative MPS to be bold, and to run out their captain before they inevitably lose the whole series as well as the match. Keith Phair
Felixstowe, Suffolk
SIR – If I were Mrs May, which thankfully I am not, the only thing that I would take pleasure from at present would be to learn that Jacob Reesmogg had no confidence in me. Such news would lead me to believe that I was doing something right. Stephen Wallis
Billericay, Essex
SIR – The impression is being given that a political statement linked to the draft UK-EU agreement is a minor appendage. In fact, in Europe – unlike the position in Britain – law and politics are intertwined. When the European court makes a judgment, it must abide by the acquis communautaire. This insists that all judgments take into account the need to give priority to the creation of a centralised state of Europe and that this should be irreversible. If therefore we agree, for however long, to subjugate ourselves to European law we will have to accept the federalist intent. Lord Spicer (Con)
London SW1
SIR – So, we can regain control of our money – but at a cost of £39billion. Andrew Mackenzie
Glasgow
SIR – No wonder Michel Barnier and Donald Tusk look so smug – they’ve won. Man the lifeboats! Elaine Nobbs
Midhurst, West Sussex SIR – Let us assume that Parliament passes the proposed withdrawal deal and it is ratified. Let us further assume that the EU continues to resist the UK’S trade proposals during the 21-month “implementation period”. Under those premises, the backstop comes into place and we have paid the lion’s share of the £39 billion.
At that point, we are in the customs union, unable to negotiate our trade arrangements, under the power of the ECJ and devoid of any influence in Brussels. The only way out of that open-ended subordinate status is to sign up to something that is agreeable to the EU.
Who among us believes that the EU will not maximise its own negotiating position and drive an impossibly hard bargain? Only the most naive or stupid person would push us into that cul-de-sac. Rev Nic Stuchfield
Aldeburgh, Suffolk
SIR – It is interesting to see Tony Blair (Comment, November 16) urging a second referendum, having admitted previously that he would never have given the people a first one. This is, as ever, self-serving in its intent.
The reason that the country is in turmoil at present is not because of Brexit per se, but because the current incumbent of No 10 is not delivering it. Peter Thompson
Sutton, Surrey
SIR – Despite being a committed Leaver, I find myself in partial agreement with Tony Blair. I still do not believe that there should be a second referendum because I think we should honour the clear result of the first one, if necessary under a new prime minister.
However, if a new referendum is the only way to break the parliamentary deadlock then I agree that it must include the option of a clean break with the EU, rather than merely giving the electorate a Hobson’s choice between Mrs May’s hopeless Chequers-minus deal and abandoning Brexit altogether.
Anything else would be a complete betrayal of the original referendum result of 2016. Nigel Henson
Farningham, Kent
SIR – After the Brexit referendum, the invoking of Article 50 clearly stipulated that we will leave the EU at 11pm, UK time, on Friday, March 29 2019.
Only when we are no longer an EU member can a so-called “people’s vote” to rejoin the EU be considered. George Lamb
Blackburn, Lancashire
SIR – I offer the following translation of Tony Blair’s article: “Now that I and other unelected Remainers have helped to ensure that Brexit is in a mess, a second referendum will offer Leavers the chance to recant, realise that they cannot beat us, and that they do not, after all, live in a democracy.” Anthony Whitehead
Bristol
SIR – Why is it considered necessary by the BBC for reporters to position themselves outside Downing Street? What does it add to the debate when Huw Edwards, Fiona Bruce or Laura Kuenssberg grandstand on the green or in the lobby? Tom Foster
Helensburgh, Dunbartonshire
SIR – I think that Allison Pearson, in likening Mrs May’s negotiating prowess to the skills of a 1973 Towcester tiddlywinks team, does them a disservice. At least they were committed to the objectives and knew how to play the game. Ursula Starkie
Clanville, Hampshire