If you consider Venice an open museum, charging day-trippers makes perfect sense

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

The tax may encourage people to spend a decent tranche of time in Venice during low season, rather than coming just for the day (iStock)

Among the first travellers to appreciate Venice were two early 17th-century English courtiers, Sir Henry Wotton and Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel. For centuries on, the city is overwhelmed by visitors – in summer, at least.

The mayor of Venice, Luigi Brugnaro, says day-trippers to Venice will be forced to pay what amounts to an admission fee. While hotel guests are currently charged between €1 and €5 per person, depending on the star rating, day-trippers avoid a tax. But a contributo di sbarco (“disembarkation contribution”) looks likely to be introduced.

It’s what one might call travel common sense. Venice views itself as an open museum, and so like many museums there should be admission fee.

The authorities seem to have said the charge is not aimed at people coming to work (how they police this is anyone’s guess) or people coming to stay. It seems to be aimed at non-European day-trippers travelling within Italy and people from Slovenia (or even Croatia), and cruises rather than visitors from Italy in their cars. The car park at Piazzale Roma is €26 minimum per day, which for Italians is already a significant deterrent.

I was there three weeks ago and it was empty.

One way of looking at the charge is encourage people to spend a decent tranche of time in Venice during low season, rather than coming just for the day.

The Venetians are not helping themselves, though, if they want to keep the city’s essential character. A restaurateur I know around St Mark’s remarked that rents have tripled in recent years. In a decade, the rent on a typical small shop has risen from €2,000 per month to €14,000 or even €20,000 in places. The florist, ironmongers, local shops and so on have largely disappeared. The council has also doubled rents on tables and chairs in public spaces.

If the idea of taxing day-trippers works in Venice, you can be sure that Rome and Florence will be watching.

James Hill
Italy

Why do we need more ferries anyway?

Can someone please explain to me why we need to increase the number of cross-channel ferries in the event of a no-deal Brexit? Presumably the existing fleet is sufficient to manage the current flow of traffic, so are we seriously expecting an increase in trade following our departure from the EU?

I thought that the predicted delays and queueing at ports would be as a result of the increased customs procedures. Therefore, wouldn’t it be more logical to increase customs capacity proportional to the longer processing time so that trade can move through ports at current rates? Otherwise won’t we simply have more ships sharing the same traffic, underutilised capacity and higher costs?

Or am I missing something?

Richard Gibson
Cambridge

I see the country is currently outraged that £13m of public money has been given to a ferry company that has no ferries and no experience of running ferries, but there is some precedent for this: we currently have a prime minister who has no idea how to lead a country, a government that doesn’t know how to govern a country and an opposition that doesn’t know how to oppose, and that all seems to be working out just dandy.

Julian Self
Milton Keynes

It’s time for Corbyn to get serious about Brexit

Jeremy Corbyn must get off the fence before it is too late and support suspending Article 50 and granting the people a Final Say. Otherwise, he risks going down in history as the leader who, hailed by his disciples as a messiah, got crucified in the polls for failing to act as our saviour.

Roger Hinds
Surrey

The perils of referendums

Of the many articles and letters written on Brexit over the last year, the one that stood out for me was by The Independent’s Europe correspondent, Jon Stone. Much has been said about why we should have another vote, but this article highlighted the pitfalls in finding a question that will be considered fair by all sides.

Those arguing for a people’s vote no doubt sincerely hope it will help to resolve the current stalemate on Brexit, even if most take comfort from assuming it will deliver their preferred outcome. Yet Stone’s article explained how each of the potential referendum questions has fundamental flaws, likely leaving one or other significant shade of opinion feeling their preference was disadvantaged by the question’s wording.

In Scotland we have found that referendum results are readily ignored if a vociferous minority of politicians and hardcore supporters are determined to not accept any outcome that does not give them their way.

Since the 2014 independence referendum, many Scottish nationalists, urged on by the SNP leadership, have made clear they will not accept a referendum result unless it directly or indirectly delivers on their ambition to break up the UK. That will apply as much to a second EU referendum as to another on independence.

Given there is no form of Brexit question that can guarantee a clear outcome acceptable to the great majority, our MPs might yet be forced to put political dogma to one side, and find a compromise that is in all our best interests.

Keith Howell
West Linton

Has May really done her best?

I have to take issue with your editorial stating that Theresa May has “done what she believes is her best, having been dealt a terrible hand”.

No, she knew exactly the sort of cards she would get when she decided to join the game. As for doing her best, best for whom, her own position, that of her party or for the nation as a whole? Let the people decide.

G Forward
Stirling