Why hasn’t the Government published the full legal advice on Brexit?
SIR – On December 4, following a vote by MPs, the Government was deemed to be in contempt of Parliament over its refusal to publish the Attorney General’s full legal advice on the draft Withdrawal Agreement.
After the vote, the Attorney General published his advice on the proposals for the “backstop”. As expected, this revealed several potential outcomes that would harm the UK, one of which was the absence of the right to terminate the backstop unilaterally.
It must be noted that the Government continues to withhold the full advice on the draft agreement, so surely remains in contempt of Parliament. No further debate and meaningful vote can proceed without Parliament being fully appraised of all the consequences of entering into this binding treaty. The publication of the full advice is also a matter of significant public interest.
I call upon MPs and the Speaker to remind the Government of its obligations, and demand that the full advice is presented to Parliament before the January debate on the Withdrawal Agreement. George Curtis Tetbury, Gloucestershire
SIR – Those politicians and others who want Britain to be part of a panEuropean state and not an independent nation are prepared to do anything to achieve their aim.
However, they fail to explain just how much power would, if they succeeded, pass permanently to Brussels from our Parliament. If the way in which Britain is governed is to change so fundamentally, it should only happen on two vital conditions. First, the full implications should be explained to the electorate; secondly, a vote of at least two thirds of eligible voters in favour of such a proposal should be required. Just talking of “EU membership” camouflages the extent of planned European integration.
Successive prime ministers, notably John Major and Tony Blair, pushed through Parliament treaties (including Maastricht and Lisbon) that took our country much of the way to European statehood, without seeking public approval. The one vote we did hold, on the understanding that it would settle the matter, cannot be set aside.
At the last election, both main parties promised to implement the decision, and Parliament voted overwhelmingly to implement Article 50. To go back on that now would have terrible consequences. John S Burton
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire
SIR – There are many Remainer Tory MPs like Nick Boles (Comment, December 23) who claim to have accepted the referendum result.
But when it comes to probably the only way for Britain to become truly independent – through a managed move to World Trade Organisation rules – Mr Boles pushes the Project Fear button, talking of rationing and troop mobilisation. It’s revealing what happens when the going gets tough. Gerald Heath
Corsham, Wiltshire