Beneficial trade deals can continue after Brexit

SIR – Of all the countries in the European Union, the Netherlands is one of the most friendly towards Britain. I was therefore dismayed to hear their finance minister, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, declare on Tuesday’s Newsnight that Brexit represents a “lose-lose situation” for both Britain and Europe.

Of course, Brexit means Brexit, and we shall surrender our seats in the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission – but there is really no reason why our existing trading arrangements should not survive to the benefit of both parties.

Mr Dijsselbloem appeared to be saying that, unless we accept the free movement of people within the EU, both parties will suffer negative economic consequences. He does not seem to take into account that, once out of the EU, it would be deeply unfair for us to discriminate against citizens from the rest of the world in favour of EU citizens. Tim Spurrier Brooke, Norfolk SIR – Your front-page article (November 16) quotes the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, as saying that making an exception for Britain to the rules of freedom of movement in the wake of Brexit would “endanger principles of the whole internal market in the EU, because everyone else will then want these exceptions”.

I always thought that doing “what everyone wanted” was a basic principle of democracy. Geoffrey Leeming Holyhead, Anglesey SIR – It might be easier to settle on what “Brexit” means if we started giving it its full name – Britain’s exit from the European Union.

To define that, it is first necessary to understand what is meant by the “European Union”. Is it to be a Europe of Free States, as advocated by Marine Le Pen of France’s National Front – or is it to be the United States of Europe, as advocated by Brussels?

The former is close to what Britain first signed up to; the latter is a different world. Philip Styles Cheddar, Somerset