We can't lose our NHS to a US-style private healthcare system

It seems very convenient that the amendment to assess the impact of leaving the EU on the NHS was voted down by MPs. The Government has failed to address the concerns that the NHS is close to collapse. I had thought this was merely incompetence but now it appears much more sinister.

Theresa May is deliberately starving the NHS of money and staff in order to be rescued by the private healthcare style of Trump’s America. When the NHS can no longer function this will be presented as the only solution.

Nicki Bartlett
Cardiff

I see that Jeremy Hunt has been spotted again. After months of silence during the worst crisis in the NHS most of us can remember, he’s morphed into Baldrick and says that he has a plan to solve the problem.

Perhaps he should accept that he and the Government are the cause of most of the problems. He could then do the honourable thing and resign.

Rod Hartley
Preston

This Government has failed to solve the problems of the NHS or of social care, and it cannot tell us how much it spent on a doomed campaign to reverse the decision of the High Court. Is it really the right one to handle Brexit, the biggest challenge since the last war?

James Supple
Fife

£350m per week for the NHS? Why worry when our special relationship means we'll soon have US insurance style healthcare?

Mark Grey
London WC2E

No, the NHS should not be funded from National Insurance Contributions (NICs), which is a tax on earned income (Letters, 7 February). What about funding it from a tax on unearned income instead?

NICs are the perfect tax to be used for payment of the state pension, with contributions from both employer and employed, since pensions are deferred wages.

And what about fully funding care of the elderly from a tax on the beneficiaries of inheritance, to replace the widely dodged inheritance tax?

Carol Wilcox
Christchurch

For all the virtue signaling in the UK, and the self-promoting politico-legal farrago in the US, it is clear that most people in the West agree with Trump’s entry-pause from certain states. Angela Merkel, in a fit of absence of mind, opened her borders to “refugees” who attacked women and shoppers but now has an exit programme that resembles “the bum’s rush”.

Trump wants to demonstrate through resolute action that he will protect US citizens while allowing in foreigners who will be an asset to America and not blow the place up. It’s a huge problem and not helped by Obama and Clinton’s off-stage antics. Finding out exactly who is entering is a challenge all Western nations must face.

Rev Dr John Cameron
St Andrews

The first duty of a British Government is to protect its citizens both at home and abroad and this by definition must include their rights. But without realising it Theresa May may find herself set to destroy the rights of tens of thousands of British expats in Europe. Her current mantra is “no deal is better than a bad deal”, but the question is better for whom? Certainly not British expats in Europe with EU national families, or EU expats in Britain with British families.

My fear is that May, after her trip to the US and talks with President Trump or her trip to Turkey and the distant possibility of trade deals, could actually find herself believing that hard Brexit is an acceptable option and leave the EU without having reached any agreement. This would be a disaster for many thousands of expats in Europe with EU families. In fact they could face a fight for their very existence.

After Brexit, these families could find themselves falling under the current non-EEA (European Economic Arena) family immigration regulations if they wish to return to the UK. This would mean meeting minimum income requirements, no recourse to public funds and even a health care surcharge, proof of accommodation, and months of waiting, not to mention spending thousands in application fees and filling in hundreds of pages of paper work... the list goes on, and all without guarantee.

If it all goes wrong, Theresa May might unwillingly find herself the first British Prime Minister in history who abandoned thousands of her own people and their families in favour of political expediency.

Robert Greasley​
Iserlohn, Germany

Democracy or the “will of the people” has become a favourite topic of late. There probably has not been a literal democracy since the ancient Greek city states. What we now have is representative democracy with subtly different rules in every state across the world. Provided that representatives genuinely represent their electorate and that officials are accountable to the democratic representatives this is quite satisfactory.

One of the statements made, mainly by Europhobes, is that the EU is undemocratic. It’s a statement that does not stand up to the most basic scrutiny. It is a prerequisite of being in the EU to have a democratic national government. The European Council consists of the democratically elected heads of the 28 states. The Council of the European Union, whose make up depends on the topic, consists of democratically elected ministers from some or all of the 28 states. All MEPs in the European Parliament are elected by some form of proportional representation. Each of the 28 Commissioners is appointed by the elected governments of the 28 states. At every level there is democratic oversight of the representatives and officials.

Rather than casting aspersions on the democratic legitimacy of the EU critics could spend their time more productively looking at democracy in our own House of Commons. It is well time criticising the fact that the Conservatives gained a majority at the last election despite having received less than 37 per cent of the votes cast. It must be time for electoral rules to be revised to ensure that our MPs really represent their electorate.

A secondary issue that is a favourite of “first past the post” supporters is that an MP represents their constituents. If only this were true; in practice the MP will be loyal to their party before representing their constituents.

Those who claim the EU is undemocratic should remember the proverb from The Bible: “Why do you see the mote in your brother's eye while ignoring the beam in your own?”

Jim Backus
Essex

The so called “will of the British people” is leading us to a future that the vast majority of the British people – many still unborn – will live to regret. The biggest disappointment has been the fact that so many MPs on both sides of the house, even though knowing the dangers and potential damage of a hard Brexit, have interpreted their responsibility so poorly.

An MP’s prime duty is surely to do what is best for their constituents’ interests. That is why we have MPs to vote for – to make these decisions for us. This has clearly not happened, and it is deeply shaming to the word “democracy”. The fact remains that a virulent, despicable ring-wing press with its own selfish agenda, and a fringe group of Leave campaigners peddling lies, will now take us all out of Europe. And the majority of MPs who could have done something to prevent it, or at the very least control it, have done nothing. This is deeply disappointing with far-reaching consequences. Those who have allowed this to happen will not, I fear, be forgotten by history.

David Martin
​Devon

If Theresa May is successful with her plan to remove Britain from the single market, then food costs shall rise harming the everyday person. When I go to the supermarket a lot of the fresh produce comes from other countries – inside the EU and from outside of it. Currently food imports from within the EU do not carry taxes or tariffs meaning that the cost of tomatoes in winter from southern Spain is similar to the cost of British grown summer tomatoes. However, if we are outside of the single market then tariffs would apply to food imports from the EU, causing prices to rise.

If the Government cannot negotiate another “special deal” with the EU, we will have to resort to more imports from countries outside of the EU. Due to larger logistical issues, this will also raise the price of products and that's not including the probability of tariffs on those products as well.

Unless the Government manages to create free trade deals with several countries, the cost of a salad in winter shall rise along with all other agricultural imports. If there is no rise in wages, it will mean the average family will struggle even more.

The agricultural industry might use migrant labour to pick home-grown food as they can pay them lower wages, as some Leave campaigners have suggested. But if we are then forced to pay British workers a higher wage the cost of home-grown agricultural products shall rise as well. As far as I can see no-one has asked the question of what will happen to the cost of our food as a result of Brexit.

Daniel Long
Kent

I read with interest the letter from Michael James (Letters, 8 February), suggesting that we line the route of the visit by President Trump, but turn our backs and remain silent. It would be much more effective, in my view, to avoid the route altogether and let him look through the windows of the state coach at empty streets. A man who craves attention would thus receive a more powerful message.

Jennie Borgnis
Norfolk

Did your editorial really have to refer to those of us who have signed the Trump state visit petition as “ordinary citizens”? Would people, or citizens, not have been acceptable? I’ve had enough of references to “little people” in other contexts, and some signatories may be very extraordinary indeed.

Sandi Cook
Northamptonshire