We now have a once in a lifetime opportunity to regain our territorial fishing waters

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Protests staged by the campaign group ‘Fishing for Leave’ (Reuters)

I am old enough to remember when Ted Heath took us into the common market, which at the time seemed a good idea in so much as it was sold as a trading arrangement with six countries, mainly on agricultural items and food.

However, to ensure we were admitted, he gave in to the other countries’ demands for our fishing rights, so that they could all enjoy the fruits of our seas. I thought at the time this was a massive betrayal of our fishing industries and so it turned out, with many fishing companies going out of business, leaving us to import fish from other countries, while the French and Spanish invested in bigger and better trawlers to hoover up fish at a huge rate.

This has to stop and we now have a once in a lifetime opportunity to regain our territorial fishing waters around the UK. Should our negotiators falter at the 11th hour, we will be paying the penalty for many years to come. The posturing by Macron is purely for him to save face with his own fishing industry. We must put the needs of our own people first.

One other point: we contributed towards the building of the European parliament buildings, so should we now demand back a sixth of the current market value? That might cause a bit of coughing and spluttering in the EU.

John Wakeman

Doncaster

My understanding is that our fishing industry sold chunks of its EU fishing rights to the French fishing industry, and that we are now wanting them, and more, back for nothing. If this is true, it is not surprising that we are not making much headway on fishing rights. 

Additionally, if we really are being so unreasonable on this, it is not going to help maintain any goodwill in other aspects of our negotiations.

It seems to me that our well-known incompetence and hypocrisy is striking again.  

Tony Baker

Thirsk, Yorkshire

John Rentoul writes today that there are no genuine obstacles to a trade agreement ('Boris Johnson’s clumsy choreography over EU trade talks leaves him in danger of falling flat on his face’ 7 December).

I have to disagree; from the Conservative point of view, the real point to leaving was that, right from the beginning of our joining the European project, they have hated the provisions for workers’ rights and environmental protections. Not surprising, then, that the real and final obstacle to an agreement is exactly that.

Under the circumstances it may be more difficult than the author thinks for the prime minister to sneak any deal through that recognises these desirable safeguards.

I K Leeper

Address supplied

Brexit is, and always will be, a wild Tory experiment. The EU will not be to blame if we end up with no trade deal, as seems to be a 50-50 chance.

The UK chose to leave; the UK has more to lose; the UK needs them more than they need us. Why should the EU compromise on their internal market structures? Why should the EU undermine their single market in any way? Why should anyone other than the right-wing UK government shoulder any blame whatsoever for the inevitable, enormous problems that will emerge in January? Blame will lie solely with the nationalistic UK government – and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. 

Sebastian Monblat  

Sutton, Greater London

Time to redefine extremism

I am writing to express my support for Lizzie Dearden’s stance on her article, 'Police struggling to tackle rising extremism because of ‘weak’ government response’, (8 December).

While extremism poses one of the greatest threats to the state in the modern day, it is evident that the term has become associated with images of terrorism characterised by Islamophobic tendencies and insecurity among British society. The government’s lack of clear consensus over the definition of extremism, coupled with increased nationalisms in British foreign policy, has led to heightened anxiety associated with those considered to occupy an “outsider” status.

Defining extremism as an “opposition to fundamental British values” is hugely damaging and promotes widespread intolerance. It is clear that the only solution to tackling hatred and division is a clear anti-terrorist policy, which defines extremism within specific parameters completely detached from racism and stereotyping. 

Emma Waine

Newcastle upon Tyne

Time, gentlemen

The male-female divide goes very deep (‘Just talk, just say anything’: How coronavirus has forced men to seek deeper friendships’, 7 December). The “Ladies”, or so I am told, is a place for a chat. The “Gents” is a place you get out of as quickly as possible.

Robert Gould

Edinburgh

Spilling the beans

While Matilda Martin makes a good point about the need for vegans to focus on attracting rather than repelling flexitarians ('The aggression and hypocrisy of devoted vegans is damaging the movement – we must take the public with us’, 6 December), at least one point about the unsustainability of our diet was misleading. She gave information provided by the World Wildlife Fund about widespread deforestation to clear land for soy crops but failed to note that the vast majority of that soy is grown to feed cattle, not human vegans. That’s a pertinent point.

Karen Dawn

Santa Barbara, California