LettersLetters to the editor

Is Brexit unavoidable?

Nearly everyone, including The Economist, seems to regard Brexit as inevitable (Special report on the future of the European Union, March 25th). The process that leads to Brexit has now been set in motion and the government insists that this is the point of no return. It assures us that it will negotiate a new relationship with the EU that gives us most of the benefits of the single market. If there is no deal, the government promises a bonanza of free-trade deals with the rest of the world. Parliament will be allowed a vote only to accept or reject the deal that is eventually negotiated. That choice is nothing but a sham. The real choices should be to accept the deal or withdraw the Notice to Leave, (but this has been ruled out).

However, the divorce settlement may prove highly contentious and might even lead to a break-up before the main negotiations have begun. The 27 seem likely to refuse us the benefits of the single market. Our exporters will then face tariff and non-tariff barriers and costly delays through border checks. Service industries will not have passports, or rights through equivalence, to operate in the EU. If there is no deal, a free-trade bonanza will be a pipe-dream.

Furthermore, what if stricter immigration curbs deprive the National Health Service of the nurses and doctors it needs and create a devastating shortage of workers in the building and hospitality trades? If a hard Brexit looms or, worse, if there is no deal, a further fall in the pound, increased inflation, a flood of firms emigrating and a serious reduction in our living standards are only too probable.

None of this may happen. But if it does, Leave voters might decide that this was not what they voted for. A major change in the public mood might well spur into action the 80% of MPs who voted for Remain last June because they believed Brexit would be a disaster, but voted for Article 50 in March because they felt they had to obey the people’s will. They could well change their minds back again and force the government to give the final say to the people.

In this time of unparalleled uncertainties, Brexit might not be inevitable after all.

DICK TAVERNE
House of Lords
London

With nauseating pomposity, The Economist dedicates an entire special report to offer solemn sensible British advice on how to “save Europe” from tearing itself apart, as if Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk are supposed to sit attentively and take notes. Speak for yourselves. Most of the British press has salivated over the EU’s demise for decades, yet it is still here. It is in fact the UK that has just voted to tear itself apart. Get your own house in order before lecturing others. The EU is doing just fine, thank you very much.

ADAM JAN SADOWSKI
London

I was surprised that your otherwise comprehensive survey made no reference to the European Investment Bank, the world’s largest multilateral lending institution. If Britain leaves the EU it will cease to be a member and shareholder of the EIB. Since the EIB is limited to financing projects in the territory of its member states, Britain will cease to be eligible for EIB finance unless there is either a treaty change in its favour to enable it to maintain membership, or the bank’s governors agree unanimously to continue financing projects in Britain. A treaty change seems unlikely; a governors’ decision to allow continued lending in Britain would depend on the outcome of the Brexit talks.

There is, therefore, a serious risk that Britain will be denied a major source of long-term, low-cost investment financing. Over the past eight years the EIB has committed €40bn ($43bn) to projects in the UK. At a time when Britain will desperately need to retain the confidence of external investors to promote economic growth and employment and to help finance its alarming current-account deficit, the loss of EIB finance could be another unintended but damaging consequence of the government’s hard Brexit policy.

BRIAN UNWIN
President of the European Investment Bank, 1993-2000
Dorking, Surrey

You say that “the decision of a majority of voters in a large member country to leave is a huge indictment” of the EU. Had it been Germany or France, that may indeed be the case. But Britain never had its heart in the EU. It joined the European Economic Community in 1973, simply because the original six member countries were growing much faster when the UK was the sick man of Europe. Since then it has tried to disrupt the club on several occasions.

ALI EL-AGRAA
London

In regard to the democratic deficit, one cause for the Brexit vote may have been the invisibility of our representatives in the European Parliament. At no time have our MEPs attempted to discuss issues with our Chamber of Trade. As our representatives they should have tried to keep in touch.

JEREMY MARTINEAU
Secretary
Fishguard and Goodwick Chamber of Trade and Tourism
Goodwick, Pembrokeshire 

Your proposed, flexible multi-tier system for the EU is spot-on. It should be extended to the euro. Younger people in southern Europe have suffered from high unemployment and increasing austerity, while super-efficient German industry has benefited enormously from selling its products and services to the rest of Europe at an artificially low exchange rate.

The real solution is for European politicians to swallow their pride and break the euro, not back into its former constituent parts, but via a step whereby a German-led bloc adopts a new currency, the super-euro. Two currency tiers in Europe would re-establish some of the past flexibility of floating exchange rates, interest rates and fiscal policy on which all European countries, with their inherent different cultures, prospered side by side for 50 years prior to the adoption of the euro.

JAMES HENRY
Finance director
Zennor Petroleum
Guildford, Surrey

There is a simple solution to the Brexit conundrum, one that will allow Britain to have its trade cake and eat it too: the UK need only become the 11th province of Canada. Canada and the EU recently concluded a trade agreement and the UK would accede to it as a Canadian province. It would also join NAFTA and enjoy liberal trade terms with the United States.

Adjustments would be few and easy. Canada’s provinces have wide powers and by treaty the UK’s could be even broader. The queen would remain head of state. As a provincial flag, the Union flag would still be flown, with the Canadian flag a discreet presence on government buildings. As Hong Kong and Macau kept the dollar and pataca, so Britain could keep the pound. English would be an official language (though so would French). Such a move wouldn’t be unprecedented. Newfoundland left the UK and joined Canada in 1949. Time to think outside the box.

TED STROLL
San Jose, California

* Surely the solution to the Brexit negotiations is very simple. My squash club has a membership fee of £25 ($31) per month for unlimited access, but non-members have to pay £10 per hour to play, which is good value for people who only want to play once a month. Britain will save £10bn by giving up membership of the EU, but it wants to continue to use some of the facilities. Why should the EU not welcome Britain to whatever facilities it wishes to be part of, at, say, £1bn per shot, for example: £1bn to be in the open-skies agreement; £1bn for visa-free travel; £1bn for Interpol? This could even form the basis of the multi-tier Europe so eloquently laid out in your special report. If non-members were willing to cough up to access the good parts of the EU, there would be more money available to improve the less good parts.

PAUL SAUNDERSON
Greenville, South Carolina

* Letters appear online only