The EU has never wanted a mutually beneficial Brexit settlement

SIR – You are right that the EU is scared that Brexit will give Britain a competitive trade advantage (Commentary, August 16).

The EU’S obsession with preventing this has been well-known for at least two years, to all except our inept negotiators. The Prime Minister fails to understand that the EU is a political construct, rather than an economic one, and will pursue its dog-in-themanger approach no matter what.

The Government’s failure to prepare for an inevitable no-deal Brexit demonstrates shocking incompetence. Brian Clarke

London W6

SIR – I enjoyed your front-page report that the British secret service had been bugging the EU negotiating team. At last we can see some signs of competence and drive on our side. Johnny Cameron

Pewsey, Wiltshire

SIR – I was appalled to hear of the alleged activities of our secret service.

Do they not realise that such devious, tactics, tantamount to cheating, are strictly the preserve of EU bodies? Michael Cleary

Bulmer, North Yorkshire

SIR – Bugging is hardly necessary – the EU Commission has always leaked like a sieve. At the time of our accession, a joke in Brussels went: “What is the difference between a confidential document and an unclassified one?” Answer: “About half an hour.” Norman Baker

Tonbridge, Kent

SIR – I misread the headline “Brexit talks are being bugged”. A Freudian slip? Geoffrey Mulford

Corsham, Wiltshire

SIR – You report (Business, August 16) that the chairman of the Italian budget committee thinks the euro is likely to collapse at the end of the year. This would cause a major movement of Brexit goalposts. Would it not be wise

to delay finalising a settlement until this has played out? Henry Speer

Lincoln

SIR – There is an aspect of the Brexit argument that is under-mentioned. This is that a national referendum is an only slightly altered variant of a general election. It is general in that it applies to the entire British electorate, voting in one constituency as opposed to 650. It is an election because it seeks an answer by offering a choice between alternatives – the very meaning of “elect” is to choose.

So by what right do an undisclosed number of private citizens and many thousands on the public payroll seek to overturn the outcome of a British general election because they do not like it? Should the latter retain their offices and salaries? And, if so, why? Their oaths of office were to uphold our constitution, not subvert it. Private citizens only should have that right. Frederick Forsyth

Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire