It's essential we stay in the EU – why sacrifice a present benefit for a doubtful future advantage?

I doubt the UK will be able to negotiate a trade deal with the EU which, far from being a single market, is a highly complex conglomerate plagued by different laws and languages. We will probably end up crashing out of the bloc and endure a period of great uncertainty – but a trading nation like Britain can exploit the opportunities emerging from such upheaval.

It will doubtless get a lot worse before it gets any better but in the long run we may look back on this as a good moment to leave an association which is a declining part of world trade. Yet Keynes warned “in the long run we are all dead” – which has an ominous ring for a 75-year-old – and I’m still uneasy about sacrificing a present benefit for a doubtful future advantage.

Rev Dr John Cameron
St Andrews

Jean-Claude Juncker’s recent grandiose speech promoting the idea of a unitary European superstate may well have made many Remainers in Scotland think again.

Yet another nail in the coffin for Nicola Sturgeon’s ceaseless attempts to use Brexit to agitate for indyref2? Sturgeon, looks like you’re backing the wrong horse.

Martin Redfern
Edinburgh

The Grenfell Tower Disaster Inquiry that commenced this week is located at the (expensive) Grand Connaught Rooms in London’s West End. Should the choice of venue be taken as a signal of the importance that the Authorities place upon this enquiry, or a sign of the power of the establishment?

Apparently, the inquiry is being relayed by video for the survivors to watch at Notting Hill Methodist Church.

Would it not have been cheaper, and more fitting, to hold the enquiry at Notting Hill Methodist church, which is of great importance to the Grenfell survivors? Or is the plan to make it abundantly clear that the survivors are to have no part to play in, and are not welcome at this enquiry?

Can we get the truth on anything in our increasingly Orwellian society?

David Curran
Feltham

If Jacob Rees-Mogg truly relishes his reputation as a throwback to an England of the 18th and 19th century, his most recent spoutings accurately reflect both the social philosophy and Christianity of those times.

His belief that the proliferation of food banks is “rather uplifting” because it shows that we are a “compassionate nation” is based on the pre-industrial concept of charity alone being sufficient to deal with the poverty and destitution of the lower orders. Back then, the poor and needy relied solely upon the benevolence of their richer counterparts which flowed from the religious obligation to be charitable, as prescribed within the seven Christian virtues.

There would be no taxation of those with money to provide a safety-net for those without, but merely a moral duty to contribute what one felt appropriate in order to feed the poor, house the homeless and comfort the sick. History tells us, of course, that such a system failed utterly to appreciate the causes of poverty or to deal with the horrendous consequences of it.

Interestingly, this vision of the world was also that of the old Etonian David Cameron, as expressed in his idea of the Big Society. The fact that his old school chum is now coming up with the same romantic nonsense makes one wonder just what is being taught in that rather opulent charitable institution down there on the Thames.

Colin Burke
Manchester

In your article berating the presence of climate change sceptic Graham Stringer on the Commons Science and Technology Committee you note the limited diversity of its members.

Having taken a quick look at the individuals involved I would say they are actually quite diverse in their backgrounds and education. What the committee singularly lacks is an earth, ocean or climate scientist of any gender, race or creed.

What hope do we have of any sense out of this government on the most important issue we face?

Dr Kevin Murphy
Southampton

L J Atterbury’s allegation that the EU is “an artificially created homogeneous ‘one size fits all’ federal state” is nothing new.

In fact, Margaret Thatcher stated this in her famous Bruges speech in 1988, arguably the inception of Brexit: “To try to suppress nationhood and concentrate power at the centre of a European conglomerate would be highly damaging and would jeopardise the objectives we seek to achieve. Europe will be stronger precisely because it has France as France, Spain as Spain, Britain as Britain, each with its own customs, traditions and identity. It would be folly to try to fit them into some sort of identikit European personality.”

In the past 30 years, this allegation has been repeatedly made, and yet, in that time, no evidence has been provided for its existence, other than misinterpreting the concepts of “ever closer union”, “supranational” and “federal”.

Ever closer union refers to “peoples” (plural) of Europe. The concept of supranational implies a legal body “above” the nation and not “replacing” the nation. “Federal” means a system where some powers are transferred to a central body, while others are not. All of these imply heterogeneity and not homogeneity. The EU’s moto is “united in diversity”, not “united in uniformity”.

Panos Gregory
London SE24