SIR – In the pre-referendum Question Time debate with David Cameron, there was an interesting exchange. When the Prime Minister insisted that there was no silver bullet to solve open-door migration from the EU, David Dimbleby pulled him up and explained that Brexit would provide exactly that silver bullet.

In her leadership bid, and again now at the G20, Theresa May has signalled that she only wants partial control over EU migration, and the Prime Minister now says that there is “no silver bullet”. It looks like Brexit means backsliding.

Martin Burgess

Beckenham, Kent

SIR – It was clear during the referendum campaign that the idea of an Australian-style points system to control immigration, first proposed by Nigel Farage and Ukip, then rapidly supported by most leading Leave campaigners, had strong support from the general public and was a major factor in the vote to leave. Reports that the Prime Minister is moving away from this solution are worrying.

If Mrs May had actually knocked on doors during the referendum campaign, she would understand the strong support for such a policy, which is clear, fair and works well elsewhere.

I hope those in the Cabinet who supported such a points system are able to persuade her on this issue, otherwise she may start to lose the goodwill of the British people.

Jonathan Bullock

Geddington, Northamptonshire

SIR – Howard Shore (Letters, September 5) says: “Full access to the single market should go hand-in-hand with a contribution to running it.” Why?

In return for access to the single market, we can offer the EU access to our market. As we run a trade deficit with the EU of around £70 billion, we have a strong negotiating position, and therefore payment for our access to the single market should not be necessary. On the other hand, given our trade deficit with the EU, perhaps they should pay for access to our market.

Andy Bebbington

Stone, Staffordshire

SIR – We should not be shy about our negotiating position. The EU relies on us heavily as a trade partner – considerably more than we rely on the EU.

Fears that the City will require some sort of access deal are overblown. If Brussels were to be so stupid as to turn its back on the City, it would be denying member states vital access to the most important financial market in the world.

Nothing in this regard has changed since we thankfully failed to join the euro. The fears about London losing out to parochial markets in Frankfurt and Paris proved to be totally wrong then, for the same reasons they are wrong today.

Alasdair Macleod

Newton Poppleford, Devon

Weekend operations

SIR – The comments of His Honour John Boggis (Letters, September 3) that the problems of a seven-day NHS are due to lazy consultants cannot go unchallenged.

In 25 years as a consultant orthopaedic surgeon, I and my colleagues have worked every eighth weekend – operating on trauma patients all day Saturday and Sunday, and not infrequently at night as well.

My experience is that consultants in the other acute specialities were also in the hospital, or available at a few minutes’ notice.

Roger Helm FRCS

Doncaster, South Yorkshire

SIR – In the run-up to the junior doctors’ strike in the Seventies, I resigned from the BMA. There appeared to be a conflict of interest between its role in representing the professional interests of members and a growing Left-wing political agenda.

This has now reached pathological proportions and risks medicine being regarded as a service industry rather than a vocational profession.

The course of strike action that is still planned represents a degree of political blackmail rather than a mature wish to solve difficult problems.

Harvey White FRCS

Warminster, Wiltshire

Tory leadership

SIR – The Conservative Party should take a close look now at its rules for electing the leader of the party.

It is easy to forget that, if it had not been for Andrea Leadsom’s difficult but correct decision to withdraw from the contest, we would still not know who is to be our Prime Minister.

Although there was criticism of the old way the Conservatives selected their leader, at least it was swift. The old “consultation” process is perhaps not for the present times. But John Major was elected by Conservative MPs and that was reasonably quick.

It is one thing for a party that is in opposition to go through the three-month process of letting party members select the leader. If a party is in government, that process could leave the country in a perilous vacuum. What would have happened if that had been the rule when Neville Chamberlain resigned in 1940?

Party members select the Conservative parliamentary candidate. Should party members not leave the MPs to choose who is best fitted to lead the party?

John Townsend

Vice President, South Northants Conservative Party

Banbury, Oxfordshire

Speedy rewards

SIR – If speed awareness courses are effective, my insurance premium should go down if I take one, as I become a lower risk. But it goes up.

Andrew Tobin

Guildford, Surrey

Iron lady