David Cameron’s mistake has harmed us all – it’s time for a Final Say

I refer to the article about David Cameron not being to blame for the Brexit crisis and the division it has caused.

This may be correct with respect to arranging it, but if Cameron had any idea of what negotiations are like in the real world, the referendum should not have been unconditionally binding, but subject to a confirmation referendum when the terms of divorce and follow-on arrangement with the EU compared to the current ones, and expectations of the future benefits and risks, were properly understood. So, no rhetoric and politically and racially charged assumptions and accusations.

In business, a negotiation team receives a mandate to negotiate and then has to return to its managers (the public in this case) to get confirmation of the original decision. The Independent has rightly campaigned for this and I travelled to London in March to participate in the march as I feel strongly and have vested interests through marriage. The UK is about to enter a period of self-harm and it make me sad.

Name supplied
Norway

The most depressing element of the extracts from David Cameron’s almost apology for Brexit in his apology for a book is that it clearly shows us that Westminster is being run like the sixth-form common room of an exclusive private school for exceptionally privileged, out of touch, spoiled boys.

Amanda Baker
Edinburgh

Prominent MPs are saying the Yellowhammer report is the worst case scenario, suggesting Brexit is going to be bad but not that bad!

My question is simply, when is it going to be good, when will my children reap the benefit of leaving the EU and what will the benefits be?

Jehangir Sarosh
Bushey

Quite how on earth you can claim to be democrats is beyond my obviously simple mind. There is no democratic way to remain in the European Union at this point in our history; there is no democratic way to reverse the result of the referendum.

The basis of government in this country is ultimately the majority view of the people. They chose one word by a majority.

Your policy to completely ignore that word, as though it had never existed, is an utter disgrace; to think members of our parliament are conspiring to deny, dishonour, disrespect the majority vote of the people is quite beyond the pale.

I realise you’re not – which makes it all the more scandalous – but you really should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. My father did not serve his country, nor did my uncle die for his country, for this.

Neil Coppendale​
Shoreham-by-Sea

Mary Dejevsky’s article about Tafida Raqeeb was spot on: parents should have the right to make decisions about treatment for their children. If they are denied this right, it could affect them for the rest of their lives. They have to feel they have done everything possible for their child, even if the outcome is not what they would want.

The elder of my two sons was born with profound disabilities. At the age of 24 he was allowed to dehydrate whilst in respite care, leading to renal failure. After ten days, the very sympathetic consultant told us that this could not be reversed, and advised us that it would be the fairest thing for him if the treatment was discontinued. He died 36 hours later. The night before he died I had a “wobble”. A friend visited him in hospital and remarked how well he looked, and this led me to have a “what if” moment. The hospital staff were very understanding and called the consultant, who assured me this was not possible. We accepted this, but if I hadn’t felt I had done everything possible for my son, I might have wondered if the outcome could have been different.

Diane Graham
Watford

Two letters to your publication propound the myth that the government has a fixed amount of money to spend into the economy. Tim Baines and Rhiannon Cutler warn that the withdrawal of the unjustified subsidy to private education will reduce the tax take. Jennifer Walley believes that prolonging healthy lives will put a burden on future generations.

It is time the public were told the truth: that taxes do not fund public expenditure. The government, as monopoly issuer of our currency, can buy anything for sale in sterling, including idle labour. It merely credits bank accounts. Its only constraint is the real resources available: land, labour and capital goods.

We had the same real resources before and after the great financial crash!

Taxes have to be paid in sterling which extinguishes some of that new money. There is no pot of tax receipts. Nor is there any need for the government to borrow in its own currency by selling bonds. If the government tries to save by taxing more than it spends it merely shifts debt to the private sector and shrinks the economy.

The monetarist snakeoil salesmen will call public expenditure “printing money” and scaremonger about Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation – whilst the UK, EU, US and Japan, mostly with huge and growing debt, try to prevent deflation by reducing interest rates. Please tell them to go away.

Carol Wilcox
Christchurch