Dear Editor

One effect of Brexit seems to be that almost everyone on all sides is perfectly persuaded of the rightness of their own views, and quite willing to accuse those who disagree with them of ignorance and intransigence.

So it is with your correspondent Tony Hull, whose letter suggests that I am “intent on no compromise whatever”, advises me to read Ivan Rogers’ book on Brexit, and calls for Article 50 to be revoked, throwing in a second referendum and proportional representation to boot.

But unfortunately Tony himself misses the mark, for three reasons. First, he denounces the Withdrawal Agreement as a bad deal, without argument. But in fact it is a sensible deal, because it takes the UK out of the EU in quite a strong way--no Single Market, No Customs Union, UK control of immigration, no future membership payments--but on agreed terms and on a schedule intended to allow businesses and individuals to adjust.

The Withdrawal Agreement is thus itself a compromise. Far from “refusing to compromise”, then, in voting for that deal I have been supporting a sensible compromise.

Secondly, Tony accuses me--on no evidence--of not having read Ivan Rogers’ book. But not only have I read it, I read the lectures on which it is based when he first gave them. Indeed I know Ivan personally, and worked with him very effectively on EU Council meetings when he was UK Representative and I was Energy Minister. I have a high respect for him, even where we disagree.

Thirdly, I would suggest Tony needs to make up his own mind as to what he wants. Does he want Article 50 to be revoked, or to have a second referendum? Revoke Article 50, and a second referendum is irrelevant. Have a second referendum, and it is likely to reinforce the original decision to leave.

In my view to do either would be a serious mistake. But to try to do both risks self-contradiction. I note that Ivan Rogers is himself highly critical of a second referendum in his book, something Tony does not mention.

One last point:  to adopt proportional representation would be to move to precisely the voting system rejected in the EU referendum; one in which the individual accountability of MPs would be undermined, and there could be a change of government without a general election.

That too, I would suggest, is a seriously bad idea.  And all the more so at present, when people are so fired up about MPs’ accountability.

I did not vote for the extension of Brexit. But now that we have it, we need to think long and hard about how to bring people together and get the job done sensibly and well. That requires not brickbats, but courtesy and wisdom on all sides.

Jesse Norman

MP for Hereford

and South Herefordshire