Philip Hammond’s defeatism has landed Britain with a scandalously bad EU bank settlement

sir – Charles Moore (August 17) asks why Philip Hammond doesn’t apply even fiercer strictures to a British trade deal with the EU than he does to John Bolton’s proposed “great trade deal” with the United States.

As a member of the board of governors of the European Investment Bank (EIB), Mr Hammond signed off on a most unattractive agreement under which Britain would dispose of its interest in the bank on terms that clearly inequitably benefit the EU to our disadvantage.

Britain owns 16.1 per cent of the EIB. The Withdrawal Agreement provides that Britain will be repaid its nominal capital of €3.5 billion, but will leave its rightful share of the retained earnings, €7.6 billion, for the remaining EU-27 members’ benefit. Worse, Britain only gets back the nominal capital over 12 years in equal instalments, the final one being in December 2030 – and no interest is to be paid during this period.

This EIB settlement is so obviously completely inequitable that it is surprising that it has not yet received much attention.

It’s not as though the EIB can’t afford to buy Britain out at fair value. It makes a profit of around €2 billion a year. It has already approved a pro-rata capitalisation of a small part of its extensive reserves to replace Britain’s paid-in capital.

Ignoring the significant value of deferred payment over 12 years, the £7 billion Britain proposes to give away to the EIB amounts to nearly a fifth of the £39 billion “divorce bill”.

Was not Mr Hammond’s acceptance of this settlement a further example of the defeatism to which Mr Moore refers? Viscount Trenchard (Con)

London SW1

sir – When the Conservative Party manifesto for the next election is published, will Philip Hammond and his friends back the party if the party line is Brexit? Eddie Peart

Rotherham, South Yorkshire sir – Perhaps we need some balanced leaking over Brexit.

Steve Baker, who quit as a Brexit minister over the Chequers blueprint, commissioned while he was in office a report on the cost of a no-deal Brexit for each EU member state – perhaps this could be leaked to us? Julian Ridley

Lytham St Annes, Lancashire

sir – Senior Brexiteers are recommending that Boris Johnson calls a snap election.

If he does so before October 31, before he has fulfilled his promise to leave the EU, I will vote for the Brexit Party. If he goes to the country after a successful Brexit, the Conservatives will get my vote.

I’m sure many millions are of the same opinion. Patrick Kelly

Chippenham, Wiltshire

sir – In disputing my letter (August 17), Neil Oakes (Letters, August 19) does not relate the whole story concerning the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

As is common practice, the Act’s explanatory notes state that they “do not form part of the Act and have not been endorsed by Parliament”. None of them is law, including the note on a vote of confidence after a gap of 14 days “to provide an opportunity for an alternative government to be formed without an election”.

The Act and its notes say nothing about Parliament appointing a new prime minister and evicting the incumbent, who could still form “an alternative government” in the 14 days after losing a vote of confidence. Those powers remain with the Queen, not Parliament. Any alternative government must still be installed by a prime minister she appoints.

Therefore, even if the matter came before a court which interpreted the Act purposively and thus took the notes into account, the incumbent Prime Minister could not be forced from office by such an action. Peter Sharp

Sherborne, Dorset