Sir, – Newton Emerson makes a valiant attempt to give some perspective on the protocol dispute between the EU and the UK ("Frost's critics suffer from slight loss of perspective", Opinion & Analysis, October 14th).
However, when he talks about precedent in relation to the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) and quotes the example of Switzerland, his analysis is somewhat diminished. The Swiss called a halt to their prolonged discussions with the EU, not because of the role of the ECJ but because of huge domestic opposition to access by EU citizens to that country’s social benefits system, as well as basic differences in respect of free movement and state aids. The UK’s differences with the EU are much less fundamental and their approach, in particular, to the ECJ is unclear and is accordingly open to negative interpretation. On the EU side, their position remains focused on the basic principle that the single market as a whole cannot be adequately protected by a two-tier supervisory or regulatory system. – Yours, etc,
MARTIN McDONALD,
Terenure,
Dublin 12.
Sir, – Rather than sunny uplands after Brexit, all there seems to be is permafrost. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN AHERN,
Clonsilla,
Dublin 15.
Sir, – In an attempt to persuade Britain that matters relating to the operation of the EU free market must be decided by courts within the EU, why not propose the Polish supreme court as the final arbiters? It and the British government would be of one mind when it comes to perfidy in treaty implementation. – Yours, etc,
DAVID SMITH,
Rathmines,
Dublin 6.
Sir, – Not to throw the cat among the pigeons, but my local post office told me that if I’d addressed my letter to Derry, UK, the postage would have cost me €1.50. But because I’d addressed it to Derry, Northern Ireland, the postage was only €1.10. – Yours, etc,
MAEVE EDWARDS,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.