Theresa May needs to reconsider a cross-party Brexit negotiating team

It is pleasing to see the major parties coming together in a cross-party meeting to put procedures in place for handling sexual assault and harassment. I wonder what situation we would be in now if that capability for consensus had been deployed in the pursuit of Brexit.

In the immediate aftermath of the referendum result, the Labour and Conservative positions were virtually identical. Even the Liberal Democrats were only suggesting remaining in the single market, not the Union itself. A true leader would have seized the opportunity to forge a cross-party Brexit team that would represent the views of the whole populace, one that would have stood the test of time by rising above petty party politics, and by speaking to the concerns of the both Remainers and Brexiteers.

Upon her election as PM, May should have appointed a cross-party Brexit commission, with members from all parties and from all countries of the UK. We have many leaders (no sitting MPs allowed) whose experience we could make use of in this way: For example John Major, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair.

If May had chosen the higher, cross-party road, she would have positioned the country as a place of consensus and cooperation, and herself as a wise stateswoman. We might be looking now at a deal negotiated with the EU in a spirit of friendship. We might be on our way to retaining the most vital aspects of our relationship with Europe while still asserting our independence. Instead, Brexit negotiations are a political stick to beat opponents with, both within and between parties, and have, predictably, become gridlocked.

Is it too late now for May to sack her Brexit leaders and reboot the whole Brexit effort with a cross-party negotiating team? Or is the current shambles so great that we have nothing to lose by writing it off and starting over?

Ellen Purton
Twickenham

Dear Mr Fox,

As a cabinet minister I am astonished that on the Today programme you have claimed that we must be careful not to “overreact” about Boris Johnson’s comments over Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. If your wife was stuck in jail on trumped up charges I don’t think you would be saying that.

Nazanin has already appeared in court since the careless comments of the Foreign Secretary. Comments that are now being used against her. As a consequence, she may face another five years in prison.

One of the primary duties of the Foreign Secretary is to help protect British citizens abroad. If Johnson is unable to do that then he has failed in the basic part of his job description.

His MP, Tulip Siddiq, is rightly angered by Johnson’s comments as she and Richard Ratcliffe have been crystal clear that Nazanin was on holiday when she was arrested. Her employer doesn’t even have any operations in Iran.

All of the hard work by Richard and his supporters risks being undone.

Making a private statement to the Iranian ambassador simply is not enough. The Foreign Secretary needs to retract his comments immediately in the House of Commons to leave absolutely no doubt as to the position of the British Government. If he is unwilling or unable to do so then this is a sign of a government that has totally lost any moral compass it may have had.

Chris Key
Address supplied

Let us hope that Boris Johnson’s inaccurate comment does not make Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s terrible position even worse.

The Foreign Office should redouble its efforts to secure Ratcliffe’s release after repairing the damage done by Boris Johnson. Additionally, the Foreign Secretary should resign or be sacked, this incident being the most recent in a series that demonstrate he is not up to the job. If he does remain in the role, he should focus on it 100 per cent and no longer engage in journalistic and other activities – doing his utmost to master the detail of his brief should be far more important than pursuing his own interests.

Ashley Naylor
Poole

The current system of offshore tax avoidance is not illegal but neither is it moral. As the tax system is called HMRC (Her Majesties Revenue and Customs), surely the example should be set from the top.

Jim Jones
Cheshire

As pals of the rich-but-embarrassed line up to explain to us lesser mortals that tax dodging is legal (paradise for some you might say) are they not forgetting a couple of things? Tax dodges are legal because the law was drawn up by the class that benefits from the arrangement and it may be legal but it’s not morally justifiable.

Amanda Baker
Edinburgh

While I recognise that fireworks cause distress, anxiety and occasionally injury to some people and animals, I also recognise that firework displays and private firework parties give huge enjoyment to millions of people. Our village display was attended by almost five hundred people, mainly parents, grandparents and youngsters. Why do some people want to ban activities that are potentially dangerous? Are we not permitted to make our own judgement about what is or is not responsible behaviour? Would “Trick or Treat” be next on the list for a banning order? Many people dislike this Halloween phenomenon.

Michael Glasser
Tring