Stirring stuff from Mr Craig Jackson (letters, July 26). Storm the barricades, eh? But one or two points about his claims: No, Mr Jackson, the majority for leave, did not all vote for a ‘clean Brexit’. They voted for ‘leave the EU’ that’s what it said on the ballot paper, without any specification of what that meant.
I personally know of people who afterwards, when the range of possible effects was becoming clear, said that they’d only been concerned about immigration and would have voted the other way if they’d known all else that might be affected. Further such comments from ‘leave’ voters have appeared since then.
Another factor which the ‘leave’ camp prefers not to dwell on, is that the referendum was clearly stated to be advisory, not mandatory. That doesn’t mean the government should ignore it, but it does mean that the government should take full account of all the factors, positive and negative, that affect the merits of the case.
That, I believe, is what Mrs May is attempting to do, with difficulty giving the bickering around her. Since her earlier statements, she has had to let reality have some attention too.
He talks of how straightforward it would be to just get entirely out of the EU and fall back on World Trade
Organisation rules. We could do that, but it would mean substantial costs and much less favourable trading arrangements than we have with the EU. And the same can be said of the Canada and Japan deals.
More important, though, could be the none-tariff disadvantages, like disruption to the smooth flow of components that our big manufacturers rely on, and which possibility is already causing concern about their ability to continue functioning in the UK.
Finally, has Mr Craig noticed that Jacob Rees-Mogg, leading champion of a ‘hard’ Brexit, has recently said that he believes that it will be 50 years before the benefits of Brexit become clear?
‘Leavers’ had better be patient.
John Tippler
Spalding
