Anonymity is granted only at the discretion of the editor, who also reserves the right to edit letters.

Not the whole story

As Remainer I would expect Robert Buckland MP to defend the proposals contained in the press release following the Brexit talks at Chequers.

However, I believe he is mistaken in believing they ‘deliver certainty’ to Swindon businesses. In fact the proposals are nothing more than the diluted aspirations of a prime minister who in her Lancaster House speech declared “We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe... that is why we seek a new and equal partnership – between an independent, self-governing, Global Britain and our friends and allies in the EU. Not partial membership of the European Union, associate membership of the European Union, or anything that leaves us half-in, half-out. We do not seek to hold on to bits of membership as we leave. No, the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union...”

The Government’s latest approach is totally at odds to this clear statement of intent, and the people of this country can see very clearly that Mrs May intends that the UK should ‘hold on to bits of membership as we leave’ and that we will remain ‘half-in, half-out’.

Much worse, Mrs May believes it perfectly reasonable for the UK to pay £40billion as a fee to an organisation which enjoys a trading relationship with the UK which provides them far greater financial benefits that it does us! That alone is economic nonsense’

Mrs May declared “We will take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain. Leaving the European Union will mean that our laws will be made in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. And those laws will be interpreted by judges not in Luxembourg but in courts across this country. Because we will not have truly left the European Union if we are not in control of our own laws.”

The prime minister now tells us that UK judges will have to take account of EU legislation whenever it interprets the law – one can only be amazed that Robert Buckland, a talented lawyer himself, can maintain a straight face and say “I strongly support the Chequers proposals”

The reality is that Mr Barnier will be licking his lips in anticipation of the UK government making even more concessions as Mrs May abandons any hope of achieving what she described as “the greatest possible access to the single market, on a fully reciprocal basis, through a comprehensive free trade agreement.”

Des Morgan, Caraway Drive, Swindon

She’s picking cherries

The south west voted narrowly for leaving the EU, a result which almost exactly mirrored the 52/48% national figure. People were promised control and freedom without any cost. The Chequers plan, with its ‘continued harmonisation’ with EU rules, and with the European Court of Justice as the interpreter of such rules, makes clear that those promises cannot be fulfilled. Theresa May’s plan is cherry picking, but they are cherries that will leave no one happy and will anyway be rejected by the EU.

Trying to strike a deal outside the exiting single market and customs union was always going to involve trade-offs. Choosing between jobs reliant on our interconnected global economy and greater freedom to make our laws; between a close relationship with the EU or a future based on closer connections with the US and other more distant economies.

As I travel across my large and diverse constituency I hear people who are now realising the costs of Brexit. Not only the economic costs, but also threats to our environment and society, particularly to our NHS, to peace in Northern Ireland and to citizen’s rights.

And they are changing their minds about whether leaving the EU is a good idea. That is why I – and over 200,000 people who have so far signed a petition – are calling for a People’s Vote on the final deal. This way you can decide whether the reality of Brexit is better or worse for our future than remaining in the EU.

Molly Scott Cato, MEP (South West), European Parliament, Brussels

A great diplomat

I was sad to learn of the death Lord Peter Carrington, the last Peer to hold one of the great offices of state and the last surviving member of Winston Churchill’s Government.

He will be remembered as the Foreign Secretary who took the rap for the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands. As a British Protectorate the islands were under his care and his resignation came swiftly, going of his own accord, as for him it was a matter of honour. This also deflected blame and attention away from the Prime Minister, for whom he was a loyal friend.

Due to his honourable deed, history only associates Margaret Thatcher with our great military triumph and not the fact that it was her savage public service cuts that left this windswept archipelago unprotected in the first place.

Carrington was also a great diplomat, overseeing the end of “White Rule” in Rhodesia and the creation of Zimbabwe, he must have been saddened to see how its new independence was hijacked and abused by Mugabe and his crooked cronies.

It’s a shame that he did not live long enough to see the forthcoming Zimbabwe elections, which almost certainly won’t be perfect, but will hopefully be the fairest in over 30 years.

Every Foreign Secretary should remember they are Britain’s representative to the world and with that comes responsibilities. The internationally respected Carrington who believed in honour, loyalty and putting his country before personal ambition, ended up becoming Secretary General of NATO.

If only the outgoing Foreign Secretary had read Carrington’s memoirs, he may not have ended up being such a huge embarrassment to our country. It is amazing how some Tories still think he should be the next Prime Minister!

Kevin Small, Jennings Street, Swindon

Making a point

A couple of weeks ago the Swindon Advertiser kindly printed a letter of mine in which I stated that as a child I spent many hours playing tennis with my father at the tennis courts in Quarry Road.

Last Sunday morning I decided to take advantage of the summer weather and took a walk to those same courts. Imagine my despair when I arrived at the courts to see how rundown they have become. The lines of the tennis courts have become invisible, whilst one of the nets on a court has been replaced with a sheet of metal.

What was once well cared for gardens around the tennis courts are now more akin to an overgrown, derelict garden. Is council leader David Renard so short of cash he can no longer keep tennis courts up to a reasonable standard?

A couple of ladies have written to the SA recently to complain about the state of Coate Water; you can add the tennis courts in Quarry Road to that list.

Mark Webb, Swindon Road, Old Town

The right nationality

Like many people, I have been watching some of the football World Cup, and to me there is one thing not quite right. Belgium have a Spanish manager in Roberto Martinez. He should be the manager of Spain, not Belgium surely.

I stopped supporting England when they went down this route with foreign managers, saying there were no Englishmen who could do they job well. They are doing alright now with an English manager.

I support Spain now. Yes I know we went out in the early stages, but what I am saying is that for all national teams the manager should come from that country. You should not have, for example, a manager from Timbuktu managing Spain.

G Belcher, Highworth Road, Stratton