COLLEEN Rothwell (letters, August 3) seems to have a number of misconceptions.

(1) Whatever Brexit is, it only started when the referendum result was announced.

We are definitely not in a “post-Brexit era”.

Expect that to start anywhere between two and 10 years’ time.

(2) She talks about “our newly appointed foreign policy negotiations” (does she mean negotiators?).

However, negotiations haven’t started, and can’t start until the UK works out what its position is.

Don’t hold your breath, but it won’t be this year, given that it will depend on what can be informally agreed between various EU players.

In any case, at present the UK has only a tiny fraction of the negotiators it will need for the job.

UK foreign policy is not negotiated with anyone, let alone other countries.

It is determined by the UK government; in this case, presumably by the fragrant Mrs May.

(2) Ms Rothwell writes: “clearly many nation states are vying to make trade deals with the UK.”

Vying?

That word should only be used by journalists!

A few pundits in a few countries may have expressed opinions, but no country has approached the UK with a formal proposal to start negotiations, nor would they until the UK has a clear idea of its own position.

Some negotiations might start next year.

All negotiations are likely to drag on for years.

As for countries vying (ie, competing) with each other to start negotiations...

(3) She says our “negotiators” are “now unfettered by any EU restrictions”.

I don’t see how this can possibly be: the UK is as much a member of the EU today as it was three months ago.

If there is ever any formal permanent exit from the EU, it will not be for years, as

(a) there are no governments that want this to happen,

(b) agreements have to be reached with all 27 countries jointly and separately, and each agreement must be consistent with all the others (see also 2 and 3).

(4) Ms Rothwell talks about the “contractual terms with which we trade internationally”.

I don’t know what this means. Countries do not have contracts with each other by which they trade, because countries themselves rarely, if ever, trade directly with each other, and contracts are far too legally binding.

They have “agreements”.

Of necessity, these are vague and loose as they have to cover the behaviour of businesses and other traders within their countries, most of whom have a considerable degree of independence.

(5) She suggests that the UK should insist that countries with which we trade have “acceptable human rights within their own borders”.

(a) Acceptable to whom?

I doubt any country will submit to the UK – hardly a country with impeccable credentials in this respect – lording it over them telling them whether or not they have an “acceptable” human rights record.

(b) Over the centuries, human rights in other countries have not normally troubled UK governments of any colour.

I hardly see that human rights will suddenly become an issue when the UK will be desperate for anyone to trade with.

Ms Rothwell’s letter is well-meaning and I do not wish to be harsh.

But, the idea that we voted and now “we’ve got our country back” is so simplistic, it’s beyond wrong.

The truth is far, far bleaker.

Jeremy Marchant

Stroud