IN the lead up to the EU referendum disingenuous ideals were being told as facts by politicians on both sides of the European debate. Trade was one of the many things discussed.

The debate elicited a sprinkling of the truth about trade from sources who have in the past proved their reliability in the political world. They were not given the coverage in the media that the more divisive elected and non-elected politicians were.

It is now the time for all sides to be involved in the decisions to be made for Britain – brexiteers, remainers and non-voters. We all live in the same country, on the same continent and are members of a global community.

Therefore our opinions and solutions will be as diverse as are our communities.

It would therefore follow that a discussion on the financial figures thrown around by various parties can be interpreted in many ways for and against various trading practices. It is I am sure much more complex than one can report in a few sentences.

Although the EU considers that two years will be sufficient after the triggering of Article 50 signalling withdrawal, perhaps a phased withdrawal including finance would give all sides a chance and time to consider the wider implications. I well remember the recent but lengthy trade deal with America, much of it undertaken in secret, which when finally disclosed showed there were glaring loopholes and areas open to abuse on both sides.

Also, the Government’s deal with China to help build the Hinkley Point atomic power station indicate that many mistakes were made. Scoring points against each other is not the way these important decisions should be made. It can lead to hasty and bad decisions.

S Harvey, Middlesbrough