LET me first start by saying that I have no political affiliation to any party and in general terms, nothing against Paul Andrews.

However, if you put yourself on a pedestal as councillor and mayor and then start to puff your chest out extolling all the great things you and your members have achieved, you can in time expect to get knocked off your perch.

So, Mr Andrews, in your year as mayor, what steps and direct action have you taken to reduce the traffic congestion in Malton and, in particular, Butcher Corner and Castlegate.

From what I can see absolutely nothing.

There is little point spending time and money on flower displays around the town only for them to die through carbon monoxide poisoning.

There is little point in looking at a car parking strategy when all people want to do is get out of this town because they are sick to death of being snarled up in constant traffic.

Don’t waste your time on fracking, it’s going to happen whether we like it or not.

So, I challenge you, Mr Andrews along with your fellow councillors over your next 12 months in office to do something positive in improving the traffic flow in this town and Norton.

Please don’t come back to me and say this is a highways matter, you’re the mayor, flex your muscles and do something worthwhile on this matter.

Oh, one last point, don’t have anything to do with the person who decided that the “new” junction at the railway crossing was a good idea.

Believe you me - it wasn’t.

Patrick Swindell, Norton

Moratorium please

I DO not doubt that Third Energy’s John Dewar (Fracking Plan in Final Stages, July 5) will seek to show he is abiding by the regulations governing fracking.

It is the robustness of the regulations which is in question now that we learn that only recently has the go-ahead been given for a scientific investigation into how fracking can affect drinking water and its role in earthquake tremors.

In providing a regulatory framework for fracking, the government might be thought to have already conducted such research.

As it has not, what right has this government to inflict fracking on North Yorkshire, Lancashire and the planet? A moratorium is essential.

David Cragg-James, Stonegrave

Outcome options

IN this Brexit process there are those who wish to remain, those who wish to stymie the negotiations and those who accept the referendum but wish a “soft” choice.

Similarly there are those in the leave camp who are unequivocally for out. And those who will accept a “soft” or “soft(ish)” result.

At the end of the negotiating period we will have an outcome, two of which might be: 1) The saboteurs will procrastinate the negotiations, prolonging them with sophisms, delusive argument and prevarications and we will leave with no agreement at all.

2) We leave with a “soft” solution; still in the customs union, the single market, accepting freedom of movement and subject to the laws, regulations and rules, which the EU may wish to impose.

We would be “required” to contribute to the EU budget “…for benefits received…”. But we would have no say whatever in the EU of what is done or how it is done. We would still be “in” with no “clout”; meaning that we would be better off staying in. The worst of all outcomes.

With option one, we can treat with some 170 independent countries having 7,000,000,000 inhabitants without having to ask permission of or refer to the EU bureaucracy.

We would not have to offer our best deals or treaty benefits with all the other EU states as is required by the relevant EU treaty. There is no reason at all why UK employers will not be able to bring in immigrant workers, who is to stop them, and why?

The financial markets would be free of EU controls and restrictions in currency trading with the euro being merely one of as many as 100 global currencies, here lies a rich source of income for the UK treasury.

David Loxley, Hartoft