Politics will be so much more boring without Donald Trump – and so much less dangerous

Send your letters in to letters@independent.co.uk

Donald Trump (L) and Piers Morgan celebrate Kim Kardashian's appearance on 'The Apprentice' at Provacateur in New York on November 10, 2010 (Getty)

If Trump does not win the Presidential prize, I predict that the next big story will be the collapse of his business empire.

He has taken his eye off his business for too long and, although his backers will not pull the plug while he has even a slim chance of winning, there will be a big rush to grab their money when he fails.

Our lives will be a lot less interesting after his departure from the stage – but also a lot safer.

Alastair Duncan

Winchester, Hampshire

Labour’s self-appointed saviours are doing more harm than good

Heaven help us if Tony Blair is contemplating a return to British politics. It would be the crowning glory in the current escalation of madness to see the return to a position of power of a man who should rightly have been penalised for his role in the Iraq War.

The Chilcot report made it clear that Blair’s behaviour was reprehensible. Such is his unpopularity that there was even a campaign to carry out a citizen’s arrest of the man.

Please, Labour party members, get your act together and save the country from the unwanted attention of this would-be saviour. Oh, and if you could rustle up some opposition to the Tories, that would be nice too.

Lynda Newbery

Bristol

Just what is it that Alan Johnson and John Cryer don’t understand? Sixty-one per cent of Labour Party members did not vote for Corbyn so that they continue their briefings against him. They need to realise that unity means doing all they can to pull the party together, not constantly whingeing when they don't get their own way.

They are where they are because of the Labour Party. Give the guy a chance. How many supporters would they have if they stood for leader of the party? Enough is enough. Shut up or get out.

Rod Hartley

Preston

We still have a chance to define Brexit

The idea that a referendum result is binding is absurd, especially when it says “yes” or “no” to something as vague as “Brexit”. I have lived for 35 years in California where referendums (called initiatives) are very definitely binding – but these initiatives pass actual laws and the voters are given a copy of the proposed law with every “t” crossed and every “i” dotted before they vote. The state government has no say and cannot modify the law in any way. The same has been true of our relationship with the EU, with treaties spelt out and voted on by the various countries.

In this one case, we have a strange situation where we are expected to sign up to a binding exit before we have any idea of the conditions. If this were a normal contract it would be illegal (we must have had a lousy lot of lawyers that let through Article 50). When we invoke Article 50, we will be signing up to a contract without any idea of the conditions, except that we have to leave in two years. The conditions will be spelt out by the EU and we will have nothing to negotiate with. It will be the equivalent of Germany “agreeing” to the Versailles Treaty – a complete abrogation of our national sovereignty.

If we listen to EU politicians rather than our own, who are lost in fairyland, we would discover their unpleasant proposals “pour encourager les autres”. Unfortunately, our upper-class Government is excellent at thinking they can make us “punch above our weight“ or order another charge of the Light Brigade.

Our Government’s first task is to change Article 50 so that we negotiate first and then sign up to the deal when we are happy with it. The likes of President Tusk won’t want to discuss it, but other individual countries who may be contemplating a similar exit should be very amenable to sorting this out – they wouldn’t want us to blindly establish a precedent that could hurt them.

John Day

Portchester

There is a way that the £12bn the UK spends each year on overseas development could benefit the people of Britain too.

If International Development Secretary Priti Patel’s new focus is to be on “results and outcomes that allow the poorest to stand on their own two feet” and the poorest are to be found in predominantly agricultural communities, the Government could establish residential colleges in the UK to teach land and water husbandry and renewable energy skills to foreign students who are being sponsored by their governments and have entered into a bonded employment contract to work for the benefit of their people for a minimum of five years.

Britain would gain new infrastructure, increased employment, research and development and an increase in international goodwill.

Geoff Naylor

Winchester, Hampshire

Assisted dying could be a slippery slope

I have considerable sympathy with the views of Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu and others (Desmond Tutu proves you can be “religious” and support assisted dying, 9 October).

However, I am concerned that assisted dying could potentially lead to a broader attitude that regards people as not worth keeping alive simply because they are not worth it. It is one thing to make a personal decision; it is quite another to be regarded as an economic or social liability and left to expire.

Lyn Atterbury

Pila, Poland