Since Parliament and the EU both oppose the Chequers plan, a Boris Brexit can win

sir – I found KPE Lasok’s letter (September 4) a distortion of the facts. Boris Johnson’s article (Comment, September 3) had two main themes: Chequers and the Irish border issue.

He articulated that the Chequers plan was about ceding rather than taking back control (the central theme of leaving the EU) and that there were workable solutions to the largely red-herring “problem” of the already extant Irish border. In short he wanted Lancaster House, rather than Chequers.

This of course would include a “big and generous Free Trade Deal”. Just such a deal – Canada plus, plus, plus _– was what the former Brexit secretary, David Davis, was working on, before he resigned over the Chequers surrender.

Tellingly, the EU itself had previously promoted such a deal and has already rejected out of hand the Chequers proposals.

At Lancaster House, Theresa May assured the nation that she was on the right track to take back control of our

affairs, in accordance with their wishes. In abandoning those plans, Mrs May has undermined our position, not Mr Johnson or Mr Davis.

Eddie Hooper

Gravesend, Kent

sir – The Downing Street spokesman’s kneejerk response to Boris Johnson’s article was that it offered “no new ideas” (report, September 4).

Mr Johnson can hardly put forward a detailed plan in a newspaper column, but in his resignation speech to Parliament he said: “The problem is not that we failed to make the case for a Free Trade Agreement of the kind spelt out at Lancaster House. We haven’t even tried. We must try now, because we will not have another chance to get it right.”

It was Mrs May’s own vision to which he referred. Perhaps the Prime Minister’s staff might like to look at the work that David Davis and his team had been doing to prepare for a Canada-plus-style free trade agreement with the EU, which is what

any sane person would be trying to achieve.

Michael Staples

Seaford, East Sussex

sir – In response to Boris Johnson’s article, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “What we need now is serious leadership and a serious plan.” Even he seems to imply that we have neither.

Tim Hadland

Northampton

sir – The very idea that “we must back Theresa May’s plans” (Letters, September 4) is ridiculous. Mrs May’s thinking is dominated by her survival as PM at a time when she should be implementing the democratic will of the British electorate.

Brian Curd

St Ives, Dorset

sir – William Hague (Comment, September 4) asks MPS for compromise and unity around a common cause. It is important to

remember that we are in this mess over Brexit precisely because over the past 40 years MPS having been willing to compromise on British sovereignty without the backing of the electorate.

If they seek a common cause, may I suggest that they unite to abide by the wishes of the electorate and leave the EU entirely, with no compromising deals.

Peter Finnie

Wortham, Suffolk

sir – Nick Boles (Comment, September 2) proposes parking Britain in the Eea/efta/norway option for three years while we negotiate a good free trade agreement with the EU.

That would bring three extra years of uncertainty, payments, open borders and lost opportunities. Far better to ditch Chequers and its author, and start negotiating a free trade agreement now, with a new leader who really believes in the policy. There is still time.

John Sharp

Great Glen, Leicestershire