No point running up more fees by staying longer in the EU car park

SIR – Michel Barnier, the EU Brexit negotiator, refuses to discuss trade until we have agreed to pay some ridiculous “fee”. It makes him sound like a car-park attendant controlling the exit barrier.

In response to his complaint of “lack of clarity” about that extremely generous tip to which he has been looking forward, we have now set out our position for him in a 15-page document, and explained to him in a three-hour talk that the EU’S treaty makes no provision for such payment, and that therefore it has no legal basis.

He still seems unaware that Britain is one of the EU’S most important customers, and that a lot of its major manufacturers are getting distinctly impatient for trade talks to begin.

Perhaps it would help if we simply left the room and said we would return only to discuss trade between the United Kingdom and the EU and other matters simultaneously with our counterpart teams of negotiators.

Dunstable, Bedfordshire SIR – Any serious negotiation must proceed either sequentially, one step after another, which will be slow and tedious, or in parallel, keeping strands moving speedily together.

It is now blindingly clear that the Barnier-juncker insistence on sequentiality is a strategy to ensure there is no positive outcome, and that the Brits will be punished and brought to heel, and will plead to cancel Brexit.

It is also clearly impossible to resolve the three EU prerequisite demands without knowing the trade outcomes, other than by capitulation.

The only sane conclusion is to stop wasting time, exit now, operate under World Trade Organisation terms, and invite EU representatives to talk to us when they are ready, about tariffs and other matters, if they care to.

Hurley, Berkshire

SIR – Since the EU’S stated aim is that Britain should not be better off outside the EU than inside, how does anyone think we are going to get any sort of a deal, never mind a good one?

We should focus on setting up trade deals with the rest of the world and organising our borders to deal with trade once we leave, come what may, in April 2019.

Kirkby Stephen, Westmorland

SIR – Debate about Brexit seems to focus on the risks of leaving. Should we not also consider the risks of remaining in the EU?

It has been in imminent danger of collapse for over a decade. Its stubborn resolve to adhere to a single currency across the eurozone has crippled the southern economies and led to civil unrest in several member states. The EU is determined to move towards a single super-state with a single policy-making body to overrule national governments.

These are the reasons why, on balance, I voted to leave and do not want to see our resolve watered down.

Ottershaw, Surrey