
Hard reset
Sir: Once again we must debate Brexit (‘Starmer vs the workers’, 24 May). The ‘reset’ agreement does give more control over UK domestic policy to the EU, if the points outlined in it are followed through. I assume they will be, as that’s what Labour’s front bench wants. (The prospect of us rushing through EU passport control, as Michael Gove and others suggest, is still unlikely, though – the document states only that there will be the ‘potential use of e-gates where appropriate’.)
Britain must pay for many of the extra ‘benefits’. Apparently the boost to the UK amounts to £9 billion by 2040, but I’m unable to identify any government research that supports this – only an assertion in a press release. According to the release, in the absence of agreement on the EU’s carbon trading system, UK exporters will contribute £800 million to the EU from 2026. My own simplistic calculation is that if this is repeated for 15 years, it would cost us £12 billion. If this is treated as a benefit by our government, then there are no other benefits – but only costs – to reach a total of £9 billion.
And Richard Johnson (‘Left alone’, 24 May) wants government loans with union and workers’ conditions attached to the fishing industry. Socialism never dies! Simply giving tax credits for such investment would be 100 per cent better.
Trevor Pitman
Beckenham, Kent
Hook, line and sinker
Sir: Matthew Parris is right: the French have always looked after their coastal communities better than we have (‘Flogging a dead fish’, 24 May). In contrast, Britain missed a clear opportunity.

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