Benefits imaginary, deficits are real

I READ on pages 1 and 4 of your paper on August 5 the severe cost of a soft Brexit and the horrendous cost of a hard Brexit as calculated by experts at the LSE.

I then turned to page 36 where I read that the tourist rate for the pound against the euro was a measly 1.06. I went to India in January 2016 and was getting around 99 rupees to the pound. It now stands at less than 74 rupees to the pound, despite us having been told by Brexiteers that the slump after the referendum was only temporary.

I then saw Haydn Williams’s letter pointing out apparent gains on leaving Brexit.

Unfortunately, the Westminster government has already stated that powers reverting from Brussels will remain in London and this will have the effect of reducing the powers of the Welsh Assembly.

The erosion of the Welsh language is down to houses being sold to monoglot Anglophones who, as when they buy properties in France, Spain and other countries refuse to learn the local language.

The governments at Westminster and Cardiff Bay could try to reverse this trend by providing more work opportunities in these areas to hold Welsh speakers there.

The Welsh-speaking residents could also help by refusing to sell to non-Welsh-speakers, but of course they would then have to accept a lower selling price.

It strikes me that some claimed benefits are imaginary but the deficits as stated elsewhere in the