The Economist

The EconomistAugust 4th 2018 13

Letters are welcome and should be

addressed to the Editor at

The Economist The Adelphi Building

1-11John Adam Street

LondonWC2N 6HT

E-mail: [email protected]

More letters are available at:

Economist.com/letters

Let’s do it again

You are right that if the British
Parliament cannot agree on
what sort of Brexit it wants the
people must be asked what
they want including whether
they want to leave the Euro-
pean Union at all (“The case
for a second referendum” July
21st). But you also argue that it
would be better ifMPs made
up their own minds and
spared the people the trouble
of voting again on the matter.
This is wrong.
No form of Brexit will be
good. We will either damage
our prosperity by reducing our
ties with our largest market; or
we will damage our power by
followingEUrules without a
vote on them; or we will dam-
age both (the prime minister’s
latest proposal). The only way
of avoiding damage to both
our prosperity and our power
is to cancel Brexit. But Parlia-
ment should not do this with-
out first asking the people. So
even ifMPs could agree what is
the least bad form of Brexit
they should still ask the people
if they want it.
In the referendum two
years ago the public was asked
to choose between the reality
of “in” and Boris Johnson’s
cake-and-eat-it fantasy of
“out”. Once Theresa May has
finished her negotiations the
people have the right to choose
between the reality of “in” and
the reality of “out”.
HUGO DIXON
Chair
InFacts
London

The preparation and then cam-
paigning for a second referen-
dum would create increasing
indecision and insecurity for
industries a more calamitous
problem than any specific

result with perilous repercus-

sions for jobs and investment.

You asserted that the Brexit

alternatives could be “costed

and debated” in a second vote.

Yet unambiguous and compre-

hensive alternatives won’t

really be available and how

much will the public actually

know about them? A referen-

dum held before Britain leaves

the EUwould not be held on a

clear strategy for future rela-

tions with the EU.

What is most perturbing is

the perils another referendum

could impose upon our de-

mocracy. The message would

be that even after the country

reached a definitive outcome

in the first referendum sub-

sequent to a long campaign

with a record turnout Parlia-

ment was not qualified or

efficient enough to execute it.

To put it bluntly the govern-

ment cannot honour the desire

of its people. The long-estab-

lished and respected faith we

have in our democratic pro-

cesses would be brutally eradi-

cated. Britain would be deeply

divided: politically socially

and economically.

It is imperative that we

ensure the upmost stability

and unity now by accepting

the voters’ verdict and work

together to implement it as

best we can.

KARDO BECK

London

If you are going to fail fail hard

and fast. This allows you to

dust yourself off learn from

your mistake and move on. A

second referendum would

further dilute responsibility for

Brexit letting the Eurosceptics

off the hook for the misinfor-

mation they have peddled.

And it would lead to a soft

Brexit. That would make it all

too easy for the Brexit extrem-

ists to say that it failed because

it was not a true Brexit much

as Marxists attribute the

demise of a communist regime

to it not being true commu-

nism. A hard Brexit would

leave Britain sadder but wiser.

Sometimes a heart attack is the

only way to shock a person

into changing a profoundly

unhealthy lifestyle.

ANDOR ADMIRAAL

The Hague

It’s good to talk

IdonotshareThe Economist’s

dim view of the American and

Russian presidents’ recent

meeting (“Humiliation in

Helsinki” July 21st). In partic-

ular the allegation that Presi-

dent Donald Trump failed to

stand up for America in the

wake of the election-meddling

revelations. What was he

supposed to do call Vladimir

Putin a liar to his face in public?

How would that foster future

co-operation? Mr Trump is

trying to build a relationship. If

you exhibit trust in someone

they are more likely to want to

honour it than not. Children

are a good example. Whether

you truly believe the trust is

warranted is irrelevant; time

will tell in any event.

Neither do I buy the paral-

lels you draw between the

Helsinki meeting and Mr

Trump’s more critical rhetoric

towards the Europeans and

Britain. True friends tell it like it

is.Tobeabletodosoisamark

of the strength of a friendship

not the reverse.

LES PEARCE

Cranleigh Surrey

W.H. Auden once said poetry

makes nothing happen. But

Helsinki perhaps proves him

wrong:

And how reliable can any truth

be that is got

By observing oneself and then

just inserting a Not?

JOHN GOODMAN

Auckland New Zealand

Spain’s civil war

The opening paragraph of

“Disturbing Franco’s ghost”

(July 21st) is biased. The Valley

of the Fallen was built to

remember the deaths on both

sides in the Spanish civil war

and to serve as a reminder for

future generations. It was not

built by forced labour.

Inmates well fed and paid

voluntarily helped its con-

struction which was mainly

done by free workers. Last but

not least you call my grand

uncle José Antonio Primo de

Rivera a fascist. He was a

successful lawyer and poli-

tician who was killed in jail

after an unfair trial in 1936. In

his testament he did not want

more blood to be spilled in

wars between Spaniards. He

was against the war and

against the military. He was

killed when he was 33 just

three years after the founda-

tion of his party. He was a very

good friend of Federico García

Lorca. His last handwritten

manuscripts are summarised

in a book called “The Papers of

José Antonio”. Please read it

and tell me if he was a fascist.

PELAYO PRIMO DE RIVERA

Madrid

Depicting war

Movies about the cold war

made by Hollywood and the

inseparable British film in-

dustry were not quite as Mani-

chean as you suggest (“The

thaw” June 30th). If you con-

centrate on “quality” films and

strip away tongue-in-cheek

(Bond) propaganda (“Green

Berets”) crass (“Rambo”) and

allegory (“The Alamo”) you

find a more-balanced judg-

ment. I suggest a reading of

“Reds” “Dr Zhivago” “Full

Metal Jacket” “Platoon” “The

Bridges at Toko-Ri” “Pork

Chop Hill” “Judgment at

Nuremberg” “Dr Strangelove”

and many others to counter

your view. Hollywood and the

British film industry at their

best have been more imagina-

tive than youthink despite

being hindered by the normal

degree of nationalistic myopia.

SIMON STANDER

Moncofa Spain

Divisibility is a trap

Schumpeter’s final comment

on Foucault reminded me of

an old joke (June 23rd). There

are two kinds of people in this

world: those who like to divide

the world into two kinds of

people and those who don’t.

RICHARD WEXELBLAT

West Brandywine Pennsylvania 7

Letters