Leavers’ tactics

SIR – Christopher Booker (News Review, July 10) should stop sniping at the Leave campaign.

The EU referendum was concerned with a single issue: whether we should continue on the road to a single European state or return to self-government.

To have allowed ourselves to become engaged in a debate as to the transitional arrangements after Brexit would have served only to divert attention from the real issue.

Bertram Maddocks Ormskirk, Lancashire

SIR – Uncertainty is the one definite outcome of the referendum result.

We have lost a buyer for our house, and my company has had a major project postponed by a client in the period since.

Would it not be better to commit to invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty between five and seven years in the future? This would restore confidence for the short- and mediumterm, and give the UK sufficient time to negotiate an orderly exit.

David Chandler Sully, Glamorgan

SIR – William Waldegrave (Review, July 9) is mistaken when he says that Edward Heath was open with the public about the Common Market’s effect on sovereignty.

In February 2002, the Foreign Office document FCO 30/1048 was released under the 30-year rule. This document had warned Mr Heath’s government that joining the Common Market would lead to “an unacceptable loss of sovereignty”.

Despite this, Mr Heath told the electorate that the European project was only a Common Market, and said: “There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”

When challenged later as to why he had lied, he said: “The British public are too stupid to be involved in governing themselves.”

David Smith Teignmouth, Devon