Turn it off and on again
Sir: The conclusion of your leading article of 9 March (‘Close the deal’) that MPs should ‘hold their noses and vote for May’s deal’ is understandable, but deeply disappointing that this seems to be the best choice left. It occurs to me, however, that there is another solution which might remove many of the obstacles we are currently facing. Could we not revoke Article 50 (as we are unilaterally permitted to do), but then immediately trigger it again? This would wipe the slate clean and give us two years to negotiate in the way you think it should have been done in the first place — hopefully under a new prime minister with a modicum of negotiating nous. I can see problems in getting such a proposal through parliament, but it could have many attractions to all sides and might put us on the front foot
for the first time with the EU.
Alan Simmons
Marylebone, London
I blame us
Sir: Nigel Lawson points out that Article 50 was designed to make it difficult for countries to leave the EU (Letters, 9 March). The tone of his letter implies that this is another case of EU rules being imposed on the poor downtrodden UK. What he doesn’t make clear is that as a member of the EU, the UK must have approved the text of Article 50. Surely a case of being hoist by our own petard?
Alan Hemson
Crowthorne, Berkshire
Dependency culture
Sir: Charles Moore asks by what right the Commons can interfere in the crown dependencies, all of which have independent and respected legislatures of their own (The Spectator’s Notes, 9 March).
The answer, set down clearly in the Kilbrandon Report (1973) and reconfirmed by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee as recently as May 2018, is that the UK parliament has responsibility for the ‘foreign affairs’ of the crown dependencies and for matters of national interest.

Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in