Tim Hailstone, of Venn Lane, Stoke Fleming, writes:

I have noticed that those who write to the Chronicle often have the purpose of providing us with the benefit of their great experience, and I suppose we should be grateful to Mr McGowan-Scanlon, November 25, for explaining to us the ­process of negotiation.

I would only add that it is not at all uncommon for ­negotiations to fail because the parties start from positions that are too far apart, especially where matters of principle are concerned.

There is a chance that this is what will happen when ­eventually the EU consents to commence exit negotiations with the UK. It seems likely that Mrs May and her ­colleagues would like to retain membership of the single ­market, but the other 27 members may well not agree to this unless we accept the four fundamental freedoms.

In this case, if our government insists on having the right to exclude immigrants

from other EU countries, we would have to leave without having negotiated a mutually acceptable agreement.

The guidance provided by the result of the referendum is of limited assistance to the Government in determining its negotiating strategy. Those who voted were in favour, by a small majority, of leaving the EU, but that is all they said. They were not asked anything about what they thought the exit terms should be.

A recent large NatCen ­opinion poll indicated that ­voters are confused. A large majority, 70 per cent, said they want immigration control, but even more, 90 per cent of the same sample, expressed the wish that we should­ remain in the single market.

Our Brexit trio, Messrs Davis, Fox and Johnson, ­continue to insist that we can have both, but they have received no encouragement of this view from EU leaders and officials – in fact, rather the opposite.

Of course, the EU side may be bluffing, but basing our negotiations on that belief would seem to be a risky ­strategy.