After a seismic referendum and a new PM, we should realise this is not democracy in action

Am I missing something here? We’ve just had a seismic referendum, David Cameron has resigned as a result, another prime minister is being installed with no referral to the Conservative Party faithful, and we're supposed to sit back and say "That's fine! We're all super happy!"?

Well, I'm sorry, but this is not democracy in action. We must have a general election as a matter of urgency as soon as possible. How do we, the country, the voters, instigate this?

Fiona Coombes
Lancashire

May I wish our new PM very best wishes, and to suggest that if she wants to stamp her authority on her government, and prove that she is a true reformer, there would no better way to start than to bring in emergency legislation to outlaw dishonesty from MPs.

Looking back over the recent events that led up to Theresa May’s appointment, it is clear that this was the result of deliberate and cynical lying by so many of those MPs supporting the Leave campaign.

While it is reassuring that it would seem natural justice has conspired to damage the prospects of these liars, I would argue we need to learn the lessons and ensure legislation is brought in without delay. This legislation would reassure the electorate that the nation can never again be damaged by individuals whose dishonest practices should bar them from retaining their parliamentary seats.

David Curran
Feltham

The coronation of Theresa “this mustn’t be a coronation” May conforms to Conservative tradition. When the party decides to replace one Prime Minister with another, you might reasonably take this to mean that most of its MPs or members prefer the new one to the old one. Yet, bizarrely, their established policy regarding this very basic question is “Don’t ask, don’t tell”. Curiously, many Labour MPs are now looking to adopt this rather puzzling custom.

John Riseley
Harrogate

It is ridiculous to suggest, as some Leave campaigners are now doing, that 52 per cent of Britain voted for an end to free movement of people. In reality, those who voted Leave did so for a wide range of reasons.

The Leave campaign did not specify what form Brexit would take, and instead made vague, often unfulfillable promises. They cannot now expect to dictate its terms.

Conversely, it is undeniable that 48 per cent of us voted for free movement to remain exactly as it is.

Therefore, if Brexit there must be, then Theresa May must at the very least find a compromise on this and other issues. She must keep workers' rights and environmental protections.

A “hard” Brexit that fails to preserve any of the benefits of EU membership would intensify the divisions within our country and make the break-up of the UK almost inevitable.

Richard Milne
Edinburgh

We didn’t get a Brexit Prime Minister, so how about a Brexit capital to govern in the interests of the whole country?

Our elected representatives were clearly misled by mixing with too many London Remainers to realise that the country as a whole wanted something else. Anxious to fix this problem, the seat of government will presumably need to move somewhere more representative – somehwere like Basingstoke and Deane which matched the mood of the country perfectly by voting 51.9 per cent Leave.

Or perhaps Parliament should move around the country – say, six months in Basingstoke, followed by six months in Knowsley (51.6 per cent Leave)? Come to think of it, this has already been tried somewhere else, so maybe it’s not going to happen.

Graham Lane
Shropshire

Whilst agreeing with Hamish McRae that technology is a game-changer with the potential to "push the world towards fairness" (Voices, 10 July), this will not happen if the developed world follows his advice to "forget politics".

How can we forget politics when our leaders’ decisions to intervene in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria continue to have hugely negative boomerang effects? How can we forget politics when these decisions put our cherished freedoms in jeopardy? How can we forget politics when government policies can be decisive in determining which and at what pace technologies succeed, and how fairly the "digital dividend" is distributed?

Technology certainly doesn't “trump politics” in the developing world, and democrats everywhere are becoming more concerned about how best to manage technological change so that – to take McRae's example – such transitions as that from fossil to electric-fuelled transport take place humanely.

So, sure, many of us want technology to be “a great equaliser”. But it won’t be unless we acknowledge the political dimension ought to have primacy. Then, maybe we would also feel moved to use technology to change politics itself – by widening participation in decision-making by informed voters.

Richard Bryden
Llandudno

It is utterly despicable that Angela Eagle's constituency office window has been broken in. No doubt it will automatically be assumed that it was broken in by one of her enemies. Yet it is quite possible that it was broken in by one of Jeremy Corbyn's enemies, knowing that it would be his supporters who would unquestioningly be blamed. We should guard against jumping to conclusions.

Elizabeth Morley
Aberystwyth

In discussing Brexit, I see no mention of the Queen and the demise of the UK. At present, Paris is seriously wooing London's bankers. If I were Nicola Sturgeon, I too would be looking for ways of luring banks and insurance companies to Edinburgh.

How would the English fund the NHS without those primary sources of revenue?

Rodney Lunn

Address supplied

The UK sighs with relief as they get a new Prime Minister determined to focus on the real priorities. Meanwhile, Scotland’s First Minister and her SNP government are looking to find a way to separate from the UK, even though the current financial consequences to Scotland would be simply ruinous. Previously much-trumpeted priorities in education, health, and other key public services are less important now, as ideology takes the driving seat and Scotland hangs on for a bumpy ride.

Keith Howell
Scottish Borders

Tony Blair should embrace the initiative to review his possible contempt of Parliament on Iraq with open arms.

It is a golden opportunity for him to demonstrate his integrity in a court of law, and hence lay to rest the verdict that is long established in the court of public opinion. If he is not inclined to subject himself to such scrutiny, that in itself speaks volumes for his true assessment of his own culpability, and we will be entitled to draw appropriate conclusions.

An innocent man fears neither examination nor the truth.

John Harvey
Gloucestershire