The PM must face down hardliners and pursue a pragmatic Brexit

SIR – Brexit must not become an act of wanton self-harm. The Prime Minister, Theresa May, faces two major obstacles to success.

The first is the EU federalists, who will happily trash the European economy to punish Britain. The second is those who seek a “hard Brexit”, regardless of cost.

The Government had no plan for Brexit, but research suggests that the best option is to leave the EU while remaining in the European Economic Area – the so-called “Flexcit” route.

This option is relatively risk-free. It outflanks Brussels obstructionists, is achievable in two years, frees us from the EU and its legislation, takes us out of the Common Agricultural Policy, Common Fisheries Policy and Common Security and Defence Policy, and exempts our home affairs and justice policy.

It also removes us from EU VAT policy, frees us to strike our own trade deals, reclaims our seat on global regulatory bodies, protects important educational programmes, gives access to the single market and gives us the right to restrict freedom of movement.

There might well be a fight among remaining EU nations to be next. Brigadier C A Hewitt (retd) Malmesbury, Wiltshire SIR – Robin Graham (Letters, September 25) asks what would happen if, by the end of the Brexit negotiating period, we did not reach an agreement on withdrawing.

According to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, we would be in the same situation as the 150 nations that trade with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules. EU treaties would cease to apply to Britain. Our laws would take precedence over EU laws (past and present), and we would control our borders completely. We would also save £10 billion per year.

Perfectly straightforward. But of course the Remainers haven’t read Article 50, so they wouldn’t understand the above. R M Flaherty Auchterarder, Perthshire SIR – There is nothing to negotiate with Brussels. Just cut off the money supply and listen to the screams as the EU goes broke. Peter Howell Malmesbury, Wiltshire SIR – Neil Conacher (Letters, September 25) questions the decisiveness of the EU referendum.

As the University of East Anglia has shown, had the referendum been a general election, then the Brexit Party would have won 421 seats.

I’d call that a landslide victory. Rev Philip Foster Hemingford Abbots, Huntingdonshire SIR – If Brexit is to revitalise Parliament as a sovereign institution, is it not perverse that MPs and Lords will not be allowed to debate and vote on the referendum result?

This is hardly a good start for our reclaimed democracy. Parliament should debate our exit strategy. Howard Martin King’s Lynn, Norfolk