Whatever the Brexit deal, it means you're out so don't expect more funding from us

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

What does the UK stand for politically that deserves this kind of neighbourly attention by the EU after Brexit? (Getty/iStock)

I am slightly gobsmacked by the implied expectation of scientists that in the case of a no-deal Brexit the UK may continue to receive research money from the EU. Why would the EU agree to continue to fund research infrastructure in a country that has turned its back on peace and progress and support for human rights in Europe? Even if we accept the idea somehow that the UK expects something for nothing, the EU is a political project – what does the UK stand for politically that deserves this kind of neighbourly attention by the EU after Brexit?

Isn’t it time to confront the British public with what Brexit actually means: all gains of the past 40 years will be lost and the country is set to revert to the “sick man of Europe” that it was before it joined the EU. Having arguably benefited more than any other European country from its membership (border in Gibraltar, Good Friday Agreement, Japanese investment in manufacturing, American banking in the City), Britain has still chosen to renounce the benefits offered by the gold standard of multilateralism.

Name supplied
Amsterdam

An aside on that article about scientists

The difference between scientists who may be set to lose £500m in funding and Brexiteers: Scientists concoct theories to fit the facts, while Brexiteers concoct facts to fit their theories.

Jack Liebeskind
Cheltenham

I want to get to know you, John

Following John Bowyer’s letter (“Can’t you just accept its time to move on”), in which he follows a common path of claiming he won and we lost, is it not time to find out a little more about the thoughts and desires of this significant section of the electorate?

It would be very useful to gain a better understanding of the reasons why Mr Bowyer and those shouting the same refrain voted Leave in the first place, and if they still believe these reasons are just as valid today. Shouty slogan people might be thought to be beyond hearing and considering other opinions, and Mr Bowyer showed some signs of this in his assertion that The Independent peddles lies. However, there must always be the possibility of changing views when the reasons for these views are actually known.

Might I suggest The Independent operates a simple filter to incoming letters, to ensure when similar letters are received, the contributor is contacted to find out why they support Brexit (beyond the simplistic shouty “because we won!”), and their reasons are given below their published letter? Some of your readers might then be won round to their argument, or have some thoughtful comments of reply.

David Curran
Feltham, Middlesex

Let them have it

Before embarking on their lunatic quest, the Brexiteers really should have considered one of the most famous quotes from a politician both way more skilled and more honest than any of them. Abraham Lincoln observed that “you can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time”.

Bring on the second referendum and we can prove him right.

Bruce Napier
Willington

A let’s-decide-which-kind-of-Brexit-before-we-Leave Brexit

So, the chancellor is accused of resurrecting Project Fear over a no-deal Brexit. This is more prudent, I think, than Project Head-in-the-sand favoured by the Leave camp.

Chris Elshaw
Hants

Philip Hammond could have warned us all and he lost his chance

From now on when I hear the name of Philip Hammond I will just think in amazement of how he is seer of the future and doomsayer all rolled into one.

For how such an intelligent being can predict that a no-deal Brexit will increase borrowing by £80bn a year by 2023/4 is just beyond my comprehension when he did not even see the global meltdown coming in 2007. Indeed, if he had such miraculous predictive powers then he could have warned us all some 15 years before the crash happened and saved us all a whole load of grief. Or could it possibly be that our government hierarchs are just basically losing it completely and Brexit is affecting their state of mind? But then again, some people do seem to think that they are godlike in what they do and that they know everything under the sun, even things that are years into the future.

Let’s hope therefore that Mr Hammond eventually comes to the reasoning that no one, not even the Treasury, can predict the future with any accuracy at all.

David Hill
CEO, World Innovation Foundation

The “truth” is right here in front of us

Let me get this right. Trump’s new lawyer (former anti-Mafia attorney/former New York mayor) has said “truth isn’t truth”. In that simple statement he has effectively invalidated every criminal trial in the US, past and present. Anyone in the dock of an American courthouse can now argue – with the moral support of this so-called president’s top legal honcho – that any conviction for their crimes or misdemeanours is just a matter of the judge/jury not interpreting the same version of truth as theirs.

Next, Rudy Giuliani’s latest is that if Trump were impeached, there would be “a people’s revolt”. As I interpret that, he is advocating or encouraging an armed civic, right-wing rebellion against the pillars of the US – the law, justice and governance. Funny how the sycophantic Republicans now backing Trump (a bit like United Russia MPs with Putin) wanted to impeach Barack Obama in a flimsy pretence, or Bill Clinton on the basis of his sexual indiscretions, but Giuliani says US presidents can only be impeached on political grounds! How about betraying the interests of the United States to the Russians in Helsinki? Is that good enough?

Garth Groombridge
Southampton