We should decide what an unacceptable Brexit deal would look like

SIR – Lord King, the former Governor of the Bank of England, has brought some common sense to the Brexit debate (report, August 6).

He rightly states that we must show the EU we are serious about walking away if a successful trade deal cannot be achieved.

He further states that we must have a “fallback” position that the other side respects and believes to be credible – since, without such a position, they will ignore our demands in the hope that we will succumb to them.

Those on both sides of the Brexit debate must come to an agreement in order for negotiations to be successful. The scaremongering and hysteria need to end now. David Morgan

Shrewsbury

SIR – David Goodwin (Letters, August 9), who voted for Brexit but has changed his mind, should be careful what he wishes for.

The tactic of the EU negotiators and those here who support them is to develop an enhanced Project Fear. They want to scare us so much about a difficult transition that we are willing to sacrifice proper democracy for generations to come, simply to avoid short-term inconvenience.

If we were to reverse our decision, we would be forced to participate fully in all that the EU does, with little left for our own Parliament to do. John S Burton

Cheltenham, Gloucestershire

SIR – Many Remain campaigners who wish to frustrate the 2016 referendum outcome as far as they can have argued that “no one voted to be poorer” as a result of leaving the EU.

I know many Leave voters who consider that a degree of short-term financial pain would be a price worth paying to regain the country’s freedom from the shackles of EU bureaucracy.

However, I know no one who thinks that such pain should be self-inflicted, and was appalled to read that “senior Whitehall officials” have suggested that Britain is prepared to pay “up to £36 billion” for some sort of “transitional deal” (report, August 6).

The Prime Minister has stated, time and again, that “no deal is better than a bad deal”. It is high time she put her money where her mouth is and made it clear to Britain’s negotiating team (both politicians and civil servants) that it is not the responsibility of British taxpayers to plug any hole in the EU budget after our departure. John Waine

Nuneaton, Warwickshire

SIR – The suggested Brexit bill is evidence of a sensible approach, and about the right sum to oil the wheels of diplomacy and commerce.

The EU will sorely miss our annual contribution, and this payment will give it time to adjust to the new situation, with Britain outside the market but a willing trade partner.

Pragmatism should be the name of the game. There is too much to lose on both sides otherwise. B J Colby

Bristol