UK should not have entered Brexit talks based on Barnier’s inflexible mandate
Professor Gavin Kennedy is, of course, correct (“EU must get real”, Letters, 14 October).
While the ground rules, including “no talks with the 27 individual members”, no “cherry-picking”, and “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” were accepted by the UK in good faith, the European Community adopts different rules for itself.
It talks to the Labour opposition and devolved governments, cherry-picks three initial demands, and refuses any consideration of a future relationship until these demands are met – contrary to Article 50, which includes nothing on an exit fee but requires the exit arrangements to be linked simultaneously with establishing a new future relationship.
France did not pay its full obligations on leaving Nato. Germany paid minimal reparations for its Second World War devastation (and none to the UK), and even gained from extra Marshall Aid and its 1953 debt-waiver which were rationalised to counter the Soviet threat (which Germany created!).
Yet when Mrs May emphasised the EU’S continuing need for our intelligence and security expertise, it reacted like a petulant child.
Did we demand in September 1939, May/june 1940 or even May 1945 that our account for Europe’s liberation must first be paid? I think not.
We should not have entered any talks based on Michel Barnier’s inflexible, illogical and unlawful mandate.
JOHN H. BIRKETT Horseleys Park, St Andrews Prof Gavin Kennedy’s points on realistic negotiations, where nothing can be finally settled before parties have agreed on all points of contention, represent a very welcome shaft of light on the knotty problem of stalled progress on Brexit negotiations.
The EU negotiators have not seemed realistic, good discussants.
One suspects that, very worried about the possible imminent collapse of the union, and, of course, their own present comfortable, wellpaid, privileged positions in the EU, they negotiate in a mood of bluster and bullying, trying to hide their own position of fundamental bluff.
The United Kingdom negotiators have the very great advantage of the balance of our trade with the EU, which will make continental industrialists fear our imposition of tariffs.
That real possibility should be being covertly communicated to their business people, who likely have no great love for the EU.
Moreover, expert advice to our negotiators from Prof Kennedy and from some of our own Brexit-sympathetic industrialists would certainly help progress! (DR) CHARLES WARDROP Viewlands Road West, Perth