For the EU to insist on getting its money first is to break its own legal constitution

sir – Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty states that “the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that [leaving] State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.”

If the EU says it will not discuss its future relationship with Britain before the terms of the “divorce” are agreed, is it not breaking its own law?

Dr Geoffrey Swallow Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire

sir – The EU has demanded around £50 billion and says that the amount must be agreed before discussions take place on other matters, such as a free trade agreement. I cannot see any reason why we should accept this.

After months, or years, of protracted negotiations, an exit payment would no doubt be agreed. However, the EU could then say that it was impossible to agree anything else in the timescale left, particularly as its primary object would have been achieved.

Then it would have been far better

Barry Smith Loughborough, Leicestershire

sir – The EU27 must realise, and be reminded, that Britain will be in a much better condition to support them in security, defence and with financial compensation if they agree to a free trade agreement without delay, thus limiting uncertainty.

The Prime Minister made it clear in her Article 50 letter that we could cope with a breakdown in negotiations and reliance on WTO regulations, but that would be because the EU chose not to accept her proposals for a future relationship.

This would confirm that the EU is an inward-looking and protectionist organisation, one that we are wise to leave. No one, except perhaps the Lib Dems, SNP and Anna Soubry, could accuse her of seeking a “hard” or “cliff edge” Brexit.

John Sharp Great Glen, Leicestershire

sir – People seem to be reading future relationships with the EU back to front. Usually a trade agreement is concerned with removing tariffs; but this is not so with UK-EU relations. On D-1 we shall have free trade.

If there is no agreement, then on D+1 we shall still have free trade. One can imagine a customs officer at Calais saying: “No one has told me to charge a tariff on UK goods.” This situation remains unless someone changes it.

Who would be the first to impose a tariff – effectively a hostile act?

Mike Keatinge Sherborne, Dorset

sir – Why such a fuss about the Great Repeal Bill? The principle is the same as that adopted by the United States when it left the British Empire, Southern Ireland when it left the United Kingdom – and virtually every country in the Commonwealth on attaining independence.

That principle is that laws in force at the time of independence remain in force until such time as the state in question chooses to amend them.

Those laws and practices that are sensible and relevant endure; those that are not are repealed or legislated against as and when required.

Hence the Americans retain the old measurements that were in use in both countries in 1776, while we do not.

Nicholas Young London W13

sir – Robert Walpole, George I’s prime minister, was depicted in front of a painting of a white horse on the cabinet-room chimney breast (Letters, March 31) because the white horse was the emblem of the House of Hanover.

Sir Michael Ferguson Davie Bt Evercreech, Somerset

sir – What will happen about British EU passports still “in date” when we leave the EU? Will we have to buy navy blue covers to put over the maroon covers, or stick on a strip to cover the words “European Union”?

Anne Storm Ramsbury, Wiltshire