Theresa May wants to ‘have her cake and eat it’ when it comes to Brexit

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

Theresa May delivers a speech on leaving the European Union at Lancaster House in London (AP)

Theresa May promised her speech at Lancaster House would finally provide some clarity on what she meant by Brexit but it’s little more than trying to have her cake and eat it.

She will leave the single market but demands a comprehensive free trade deal without paying much into the budget or bowing to the European Court of Justice plus a tariff–free customs agreement that leaves the UK free to strike trade deals with the rest of the EU.

She cannot be serious!

Throwing a morsel to her Europhobic backwoodsmen she threatened to walk away if she was offered a “bad deal” but a “no deal” puts us in the tariff-based regime of the World Trade Organisation, which will have a devastating effect on UK business.

Rev Dr John Cameron
Edinburgh

I am left a little confused after Theresa May’s Lancaster House speech on Brexit.

In the run up to the EU referendum, May, campaigning on the Remain side, argued that leaving the single market would leave the UK economy “worse off”.

Now, only a few months later, May is looking to take the UK out of that same single market. This leaves us with two obvious conclusions. Either May was wrong in her pronouncements in the run up to the referendum, or she is taking us down a road which will leave the UK economy “worse off”.

The British public clearly have a right to know which one it is.

Alex Orr
Edinburgh

Theresa May claims that “considering the issue, setting out plans and sticking to it” constitutes leadership. Some of us would call it control-freakery, particularly when it’s practised by someone shamelessly holding on to a job that she acquired through the back door.

Susan Alexander
South Gloucestershire

None of May’s propositions are set in stone – she is just negotiating

Everyone believes they understand how a negotiation works. Anyone who has been on a negotiating course gets taught two things, amongst others: aim high; be prepared to walk away.

“Aim high” means start out by asking for something which is theoretically possible but unlikely to be conceded by the other side (e.g. does anyone believe Trump is really going to impose a 35 per cent tax on all cars imported to the US?). Then the negotiator can move step by step to the position they really want to achieve. “Be prepared to walk away” is fundamental. If the other side knows the negotiator cannot leave without a deal, then they can just stick to their guns and wait for the negotiator to collapse.

Theresa May isn’t setting any of the positions in her speech in stone, she is just doing what any competent negotiator would do. Her speech does not mean we are going to be out of the single market, out of the customs union, back on WTO basic rules, a Singapore with rain. But to negotiate effectively, she has to start at that point and make it clear to the EU negotiators that she is prepared to do that if she has to.

Roger Keenan
Bedfordshire

How will we explain our mistakes to our grandchildren?

How are we going to explain to our grandchildren that, as a result of wars we exacerbated, fleeing and scared peoples actually scared us into rejecting our economic self-interest – or rather their economic interest? How are we going explain that our smaller local farmers were decimated by cheap imports from the US, how chlorine-coated chickens became the norm because we had no choice after cutting ties with our neighbours to cosy up to nations that put big corporate interests above all else?

How are we going to explain why our health system – once the envy of the world – was now third world and run by privateering profiteers? How are we going to explain our court system dominated by secret tribunals – allowing expensive corporate lawyers to trample over the environment we knew to be in danger? How are we going to explain the super-rich and the poverty stricken – a gap we already knew to be growing before we became a tax haven, widening that chasm like never before?

Stefan Wickham
Surrey

The government needs to respect our privacy

I am writing to you because I would like to share my concerns with the rest of the public about the intrusive new law passed on the 2 March 2016. This was a law passed by the government to keep logs of the public’s internet traffic. It means that the internet service providers (ISPs) can look at every site that any person on the internet clicks on. The data that is collected by the internet service providers, is kept for twelve months. This law also means that the police and government agencies like GCHQ, can look at the data without a warrant. They can also legally hack into any smartphone or computer whenever they decide they have reason.

As a member of the British public, I am supposed to have the right to privacy and when I do not want to share information with someone I don't have to. However this law has taken that privilege away from every British citizen. It takes away the point of security features, like encryption or two factor authentication. The data and traffic that I am looking on is private, why is it that, as a British citizen, I have to share my information with other people, without knowing when and without my permission?

I appreciate that the government and the police want to stop terrorists, but taking away personal rights and privileges should not be the way forward. Hacking into computers without any warrants isn’t privacy. Why do we as a nation need to be spied on and monitored without any choice in the matter? Surely we should be able to search and have browsing data that isn’t monitored by the government? We are told by adverts and media that the devices and services we use are secure, however they are not if the government can get into them at any time. In reality, we are being spied on.

Privacy is a right not an object. It shouldn’t be taken from us!

Flyn Brigden
Milton Keynes

Boris Johnson should not make Holocaust comparisons

It is ferociously offensive for Boris Johnson to make any comparison with the Holocaust. The Holocaust stands out as the most deplorable, racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic and condemnatory crime perpetrated under the cloak of religion in modern history. Boris Johnson could have put it more diplomatically by asking the French President not to undo decades of cooperation, mutual trust, respect, understanding, peace, security, teamwork, partnership, profitability, productivity, free movement and sportsmanship between Europe and Britain and not resort to threats. Threats are the last resorts of a man with no vocabulary.

Dr Munjed Farid Al Qutob
London, NW2

Scotland needs more affordable homes

The latest official statistics on homelessness in Scotland continue to show a downward trend in the number of people being assessed as homeless. This is testament to the hard work of the housing sector and its focus on prevention. But an increase in the number of households with children living in temporary accommodation – 3,174 at the end of September last year, a 13 per cent increase on the corresponding number a year previously – is a real cause for concern.

Temporary accommodation is not ideal for any household but can be particularly disruptive for children. These statistics show the need for a continued focus on providing enough good quality, affordable homes with the right type of support in place to ensure that every household in Scotland has a safe secure place to call home.

Annie Mauger
Edinburgh

Bereavement support needs to extend to pensioners

Regulations have been laid before Parliament that could greatly help those bereaved with the costs of losing a loved one. They come into force on April 6. Increasing the lump sum from £2,000 to £3,500 for those with children, and £2,500 to those without, plugs a hole that has not been improved for many years.

Unfortunately, it is only available to those up to state pension age, meaning older people will continue to lose out, will often be financially strapped, and, with the high cost of funerals, will have a financial burden around their necks.

Further changes may well benefit non-pension age people suffering loss. Partially a step in the right direction, but we’re not quite there yet!

Gary Martin
London, E17