YOU printed a letter about a ‘no deal’ Brexit being nothing to worry about but, despite the very well publicised, researched and reputable reports from economic, trade and medical experts who clearly state that a ‘no deal’ would be catastrophic for the country, you have chosen not to offer any counter argument.

Then you have letters from Mr Cussons and Mr Scott which also contain opinions that need to be challenged to avoid misinforming your readership.

In the first six months of 2018, the UK was one of the slowest growing economies in the G7 behind France, Germany and Italy.  This is in contrast to our position in 2016 when we were one of the fastest  growing of these economies.

As we are not in the Euro, we are, to some extent protected from the pull of struggling economies like Greece, but, given that so much of our trade is with the EU, the demise of EU economies is not something we escape whether we are in or out of the EU.

Furthermore, the Treasury confirmed that all Brexit scenarios will significantly harm our own economy and threaten jobs as we lose the benefits derived from being a member of the Single Market, the largest and wealthiest free trade area in the world.

As for the statement that ‘the current damaging  impasse to both sides is caused wholly by the EU’s intransigence’, really, ‘wholly’?  It was the UK that decided to leave, and the EU has offered the UK a range of options based on the government’s stated red lines.  Without wanting to undermine its own strengths, it offered a Norway style deal, if we wanted to soften those lines and a Canada style free trade agreement if we wanted to stick to them.

Our government turned down both in a bid to stick to its aims while not imposing a hard border in Northern Ireland.  The impasse is largely created by PM May’s refusal to be honest about the trade-offs of leaving the EU with an electorate who were persuaded by the advocates of leaving the EU that they could have all the benefits of EU membership with none of its responsibilities.

As for ‘never audited budget’– the Court of Auditors has signed off the EU accounts every year since 2007.  The idea that other countries are lining up to leave is firmly contradicted by the most recent polling across the bloc which shows support for EU membership at a 35-year high.

Sixty-seven per cent of EU citizens think that membership has benefited their country, the highest level since 1983.

Finally, to call the EU, ‘ever expanding’ and yet ‘backward looking’ seems ironic.  For many, Brexit is based on the mistaken hope that we ourselves will return to a past where Britannia ruled the waves.  The world has moved on since then.

J Addison

Wilmslow