Britain, take note: there was a reason referendums were limited in Germany after 1945

There is a reason why referendums were limited under the German constitution after World War II. They were a key instrument in destroying parliamentary democracy in the Weimar Republic and ultimately allowed Hitler to come to power.

The Brexit referendum too has done untold damage to the authority of parliament in this country, and in today’s social media world, its outcome was easily easily and illegally manipulated.

This is the real legacy of David Cameron. A culture of meaningless petitions and a total loss of respect for our MPs, our constitution and democratic conventions. This is evidenced as much by yellow vests haranguing Anna Soubry MP as it is by leaks disregarding the Official Secrets Act. What are we left with? Which referendum counts? The Irish referendum, the Scottish or the English and which one of the latter? Who represents the Will of the People now? It looks like whoever can raise not necessarily the largest but the most aggressive rabble. And in this the populists will always win.

Barbara Kempf​
Leeds

Hayden Vernon’s article on social housing and the sad lack of it today reignited for me my experience as a boy in rural Sussex. In many ways, my experience was better than Hayden’s in that until the age of ten I was raised on a farm where my father was a labourer. In 1956, my father was suffering ill health as a result of his wartime experiences and was unable to work, which resulted in the family being evicted. We were promptly rehoused in a council house in the nearby village which was of better quality than our tied cottage and meant that I was close to all my school friends. Spending my formative years on the farm was very enjoyable, because as soon as I could walk I was allowed complete freedom to wander the farmyard, fields and woods. By the age of eight, I was driving tractors well before Health and Safety was fashionable!

The almost complete lack of genuinely affordable housing today is a disgrace and the Tory government should hang their collective heads in shame. When Margaret Thatcher introduced the so called “Right to Buy” I was appalled and I truly believe that those who wish to become owner occupiers should buy on the regular housing market. To make matters even worse, there has been massive abuse of the system in as much as so much social housing stock has been recycled on to the private rental market.

David Felton​
Crewe

In response to the correspondents who write in support of the continuation of Scotland’s union with the UK, and against the intentions of the SNP, I can’t help but feel there is some failure to understand one or two vitally simple points.

Firstly, why do these writers (Martin Redfern on Saturday 27 April and Keith Howell the previous day) fail to understand the very simple point that SNP means Scottish Nationalist Party. It is really quite surprising (or perhaps disingenuous?) to complain that a political party which named itself to reflect its purpose actually campaigns for that stated purpose.

Secondly, according to Martin Redfern, some 47.1 per cent of the Scottish electorate voted for the SNP at the last general election – a percentage which he thinks should disqualify them from pursuing their stated aim of Scottish independence. The reality according to the BBC (Election 2017: Scotland’s result in numbers) is that they obtained some 36.9 per cent of the vote share.

However, even allowing for the reduction in their support from the previous general election of some 13.1 per cent, the fact that the Scots feel it necessary to vote for the SNP in such large numbers when they are a single-issue party should surely be the issue of debate. This is a debate which is likely to become significantly more pressing south of the border when the electorate realise the harm done to them by the Brexit nonsense by both the Tory government and the so-called opposition Labour party.

Support the continuation of the Union as much as you want, but let’s have some reality and honesty in the debate. There is more than enough rhetorical nonsense in Westminster.

David Curran
Feltham, Middlesex

In his article “May killed Brexit and her party”, John Rentoul focuses on the English mess at Westminster. His prognostications are from the Westminster bunker as usual.

He conflates England and Britain and forgets the impact of the other three nations on Westminster.

The SNP, representing a small nation within the UK, is the third largest party at Westminster and will increase its representation at the next election if present trends continue. Labour would need it to form a government.

Yet, not a mention in his article. In fact, as the support for Indyref2 and independence rises, and we are still in the EU, it will leap after the UK leaves. Yet, John Rentoul does not look at a UK-wide scenario, he just falls back on England.

The English problem is now the most pressing crisis in Great Britain at present. English identity and England are in a mælstrom, yet, all the English commentators can do is to see it in terms of the parties.

There will always be an England, so rang the ditty during WWII, but what England will it turn out to be?

English nationalism is linked to the hard right, the alt-right and increasing xenophobia, given the rise of Brexit Party and its links to Steve Bannon and the US!

Scots will be leaving this distorted UK soon, but the English have to sort out their problem. Independence from the UK will be good for England too. It is long overdue! Scary stuff!

John Edgar
Kilmaurs

President Trump craves publicity and adoration. Our Conservative government has provided the opportunity to satisfy his ego. We, the public, can deny him by ignoring him; failing to line the streets and turning our backs on him. Not even protesting during his visit. This a not intended as a slight to the Queen as she has little choice but to go along with this charade. We can only hope that the media or right-thinking elements within it follow our lead and fail to report on this visit.

Maurizio Moore
Brentwood, Essex

Regarding the protests by Extinction Rebellion against climate change, this is misguided. According to National Energy Action, 17,000 people died last year due to cold housing, so we really need do need a hotter climate to avoid these unnecessary deaths. Maybe the break in Extinction Rebellion’s protests could offer them pause for thought and target their activities towards supporting the tens of thousands of poor in this country who die for the simple reason of... well, being poor. And instead of having a protest “die in” at museums, Extinction Rebellion could have a “die in” at food banks – oh hold that thought, I’ve just remembered, saving the poor isn’t as sexy as saving the planet.

Francis Kenny
Liverpool