Brexit stalemate arises out of the EU’S failure to abide by its own rules
SIR – Why is Michel Barnier, the EU’S chief negotiator, being allowed to ignore the requirements of Article 50 in the current Brexit talks?
The article states that, when a state has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the union, “the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union”.
It is not logically possible to take account of “the framework for the future relationship” until that framework has been settled. The EU should therefore have started by negotiating the framework for the future relationship and only then moved to conclude the agreement on the arrangements for the withdrawal. Robert Heather
Southampton
SIR – The condescending response from Michel Barnier et al towards any proposals put forward by the Brexit secretary, David Davis, shows only too clearly that the EU side has never had any intention of reaching a mutually agreed outcome. By continuing to insist on a resolution on their terms, they are well aware that they can delay and obfuscate to their hearts’ content.
Would it not be realistic to accept this, agree that “no deal is better than a bad deal” and walk away now? Paul Strong
Claxby, Lincolnshire
SIR – Michel Barnier, Jean-claude Juncker and the rest should stop carping about the UK’S approach to the Brexit negotiations and pay a little more attention to what’s happening on their side of the English Channel.
According to a “mini poster” for students, purchased in a French supermarket at St Omer, “L’union européenne” has only 27 members – and Britain is not one of them. James A Cowan
Belmont, Co Durham SIR – Venetia Caine (Letters, August 28) is quite right; this Brexit farce should be brought to an end, and quickly.
The referendum should never have been called and the resulting majority was too small for such a significant motion to be carried. Furthermore, David Cameron said clearly at the time that the outcome was not necessarily a mandate.
Strong leadership would have ended this whole ridiculous affair a long time ago. Let’s hope that enough people will come to the same conclusion and that common sense will prevail. Ron Stubberfield
Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire
SIR – Dr Millan Sachania (Letters, August 29) lists three conditions which he believes would be appropriate for the running of future referendums. May I suggest a fourth?
“That in the event of the wrong result being returned by the electorate, further referendums will be held until the right result is achieved”.
Lord Willoughby de Broke (Ukip) London SW1