The Brexit vote was about a socially and morally impoverished nation, not our relationship with Europe

Amol Rajan is right about the threats to future stability and a fair and prosperous society. The vote to leave the EU was, in my opinion, a vote by the long-disadvantaged part of electorate to say enough is enough. It was about poor and unavailable decent housing (seeing rich private developers and the landowners making huge profits due to the supply and demand realities in those constituencies), the lack of sufficient spaces in schools and hospitals, the lack of social care for the elderly who do not have a capital-rich family and the lack of decent jobs for more than three generations and no sign of that changing.

This was not about the EU, in reality. It was about many decades of UK worker exploitation and poor UK leadership. This has left the UK socially impoverished and morally corrupted by politicians who have little concern for the future and only consider their immediate earning potential.

Theresa May has the chance do what she said she would do in her first speech as Prime Minister. We need an industrial strategy that uses all of our capacity to build modern decent homes. We need homes, jobs, education and health and social care, and a modern circular and high-tech industrial base that promotes British products and self-sufficiency as well as exports.

This Government has the opportunity to create from the smokestack heritage of our past and the silver lining of the cloud of its destruction by global competition and short-sighted unions a sustainable and fair society that champions contributors to long-term prosperity and fairness. A social services revolution akin to the creation of the NHS is also needed. That will strengthen the NHS and create many jobs for properly-trained carers.

We need social professionals who are pragmatic and strong; who reject moral weakness and demand robust but fair performance from all, not a soft-option benefit-of-the-doubt approach but one that gives good support to those who deserve it.

Michael Mann
Shrewsbury

With respect to Amol Rajan, the result of the Referendum was not at all “clear”. Nearly half of those in the country who actually voted were Remainers, and it is now clear that many who voted for Brexit were protest voters with little thought beyond giving the government a kick, and who did not expect Brexit to happen. Many others were so blinded by their dislike of immigration (and evidently with little understanding of its importance to the British economy) that they refused to listen to any of the economic warnings.

In other countries where there are written constitutions, major constitutional change would require a two-thirds majority, not an almost split verdict with a tiny majority for what are seriously alarming changes. This dubious vote cannot be a justification for the three fantasist Brexiteers in Government to sweep all before them. Parliament remains supreme in our constitution and of course it has the right to scrutinise the progress of the negotiations and ultimately to vote down the final package if it does not believe it is in the interests of the UK and its future prosperity.

Gavin Turner
Gunton

So senior Tories don’t want a “botched Brexit? Fat chance. With the country having voted for Brexit, a botched Brexit is the only thing on offer. The soft option of retaining access to the Single Market brings with it free movement of labour and continued financial contributions – all the downsides of EU membership without any say in how the EU is run plus the additional expense of dealing independently with the rest of the world. That can’t be what those who voted for Brexit wanted so a hard Brexit is the only realistic option, however painful that might be financially.

If the other members of the EU had really wanted the UK to remain they would have offered some realistic concessions on free movement to David Cameron. They still have that choice since such an offer made now would be sufficient justification for another referendum which would almost certainly reverse the result of the first but they will not so it appears curtains for the soft option. The public at large will not accept it.

Don’t blame me, I voted to remain. But I think it might be instructive to have another referendum, this time on the narrow question of restricting immigration otherwise Ukip might see immigration as its continued raison d’etre and win by a landslide at the next general election.

Roger Chapman
Keighley

Gavin Turner’s Saturday letter on the “near miss” election result is a sad reflection on the Remainers’ view of democracy. We have for many years prided ourselves in the workings of our voting system. All eligible get a shout, and although we may not get the result we always want, we do in the majority of occasions get a result. I suspect that if this result had gone the other way, we wouldn’t have heard from him.

David Higgins
Yeovil

I think you're a little confused. Brexit isn’t about “Little Britain”. It's about Independent Britain. Sovereign Britain. Global Britain. Great Britain.

Roger Helmer MEP, Ukip
Brussels

Those who favour Brexit maintain that those of us who don’t should stop moaning. Are we really to believe that had the referendum result been different then we would never have heard again from them on the matter?

Mark Lewis
Weybridge

Kudos to the UK for voting against an anti-Semitic UNESCO executive board draft decision that denies the ancient Jewish historical attachment to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The UN agency’s draft decision did not merely “marginalise” and “downplay” the Jewish people's link to the holy site, it referred to the Temple Mount exclusively as the “Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Ḥaram Al-Sharif” and called it “a Muslim holy site of worship”. It also belittled the Jewish connection to the Western Wall, a 2,000-year-old remnant of the Second Temple and the holiest site where Jews may pray today. The draft decision is not merely absurd – it is a hateful denial of history itself.

Stephen A Silver
San Francisco, USA

As a part-time stickler, I thoroughly enjoy John Rentoul’s weekly Mea Culpa column. However, even though I could probably find San Marino on a map, I don’t follow football and didn’t know England had ever played them, or been scored against in the opening seconds of a match. So, in this case, I would be “ignorant and wouldn't thank The Independent for pointing it out”.

Is fame just a matter of how many people know about something? Or does fame need significance as well as widespread awareness? But then who judges? “Famous for winning Strictly Come Dancing” and “famous for inventing penicillin” just feel like different things.

Perhaps get rid of it entirely, or always add a qualifier such as “briefly famous for appearing in Bake Off series six” or “rightly famous for revealing the degree of CIA email interception”.

Iain Boyd
Dartford

Holly Baxter does not address some important elements of the Ched Evans. Does police canvassing for additional victims differ materially from the activities of Evans’s supporters seeking corroborating evidence? If so, how? Is not establishing the truth the whole point of legal process? Why are the antecedent factors affecting either party treated differently? Are there good reasons for naming either or both parties in such cases?

As things stand, it is Evans who is the wronged party. He has suffered a two-year deprivation of liberty, a shattered career and public obloquy. Why is it not just to seek a similar penalty for the party at fault? Is Evans able to claim costs and damages from his assailant or any other party? If not, why not? An immaculate equipoise is required of all of us.

Steve Ford
Haydon Bridge

US polls indicate that the presidential election will be heavily influenced by large-scale negative sentiment. People intend to vote for the candidate they dislike least. An increasing number of electors seem to dislike Donald Trump more than Hillary Clinton. However, it is possible that many Republicans who disown Trump will still feel unable to support his opponent.

Given that only half the electorate votes anyway, mass abstention could reduce the proportion of effective voters to 40 per cent. Is there a level below which the result is not valid? A precedent for serious challenge or demand for a fresh election on such grounds?

In 2000, the cliff-hanger Gore-Bush contest led to confusion and legal complications. The result of the recent Hungarian referendum on immigration was declared invalid because the poll did not reach 50 per cent. The Austrian presidency had to be fought again, too.

As Clinton is a lawyer and Trump is accustomed to threatening legal action we must fear that election day will not see the end of the present struggle. We must hope that contingency plans have been drawn up to cover the republican equivalent of an interregnum. A prolonged vacuum at the apex of the US political structure would be extremely dangerous, as would the wrong interrex.

Margaret Brown
Burslem

Maybe Donald Trump’s tax returns are right. He has lost many millions of dollars that he inherited; it might be true that he has made little money since.

Kristen Park
Address withheld

There is a fundamental logical flaw in John Rentoul’s analysis. If cabinets cannot have an open-ended debate about major decisions in case it is leaked, the implication is that such decisions should be taken without debate. If secrecy is required because a leak could make a negotiator look foolish or weak, perhaps it means they are. Perhaps we should know.

David Buckton
Cambridge

I read Matthew Norman’s diatribe against GPs’ receptionists a few minutes after meeting one of these people face-to-face. My request for a GP appointment was dealt with quickly, efficiently, pleasantly and with a smile. I did not recognise Norman’s reference to “Khmer Rouge death camp guards”. Perhaps Norman ought to look outside his little enclave in London before passing judgement on all the nation’s receptionists.

Sam Boote
Nottingham