What could China possibly want from us?

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Theresa May and Chinese President Xi Jinping meet in Beijing (EPA)

As we are no longer a nation that manufactures goods that would be of any possible economic benefit to China, it would be most interesting to learn the details of the proposed trade deals about which Theresa May and Liam Fox-in-the-headlamps have not been “absolutely clear”. Whatever could these products be? Military hardware? The acquisition of luxury properties? Surely not?!

Sue Breadner
Isle of Man

Protecting charity money

A criminal in Aberdeen, who already had an appalling record, was recently jailed for what were utterly despicable crimes – stealing 11 charity cans from various places. He totally deserves to go to prison for the time the judge sentenced him to.

However, I have lost count of the number of times I have pointed out to shopkeepers and people in offices and clinics that their charity donation cans are not secure, and not attached or chained to anything to preventing them from being stolen.

Maybe all those who have charity collecting tins on their premises will take heed and make sure they are as secure as possible now.

Judi Martin
Aberdeenshire

Abolish the monarchy

I think people have a nostalgic attachment to the Queen and believe it would be cruel to abolish the monarchy whilst she is alive. Similarly, there may be a feeling that Charles has waited so long to be king that we can’t deprive him.

But the monarchy is undemocratic and potentially dangerous. It is harmful to William and George that they are forced into roles they may not want. It also perpetuates a class structure.

After the death of the Queen, I would abolish the monarchy, give Charles some honorary position, send the rest of the royal family out to work and have a fixed-term elected president with a mainly ceremonial role.

Paul Smith
Nuneaton

We won’t leave the customs union

Even as Theresa May tries to placate the hard Brexiteers with statements about leaving the customs union, your editorial is surely right – we will not be doing so. We will take the Norway option as a fait accompli – because it will be the only option on the table that won’t cost our economy billions. Labour will back this approach soon enough and the young will vote Corbyn in before the “transition” ends (unless the Tories adopt the same position).

Stefan Wickham
Oxted

The benefits of gentrification

In response to Sahaya James’s recent comment piece (Universities are becoming the acceptable face of gentrification), I would like to assure your readers that the wider regeneration of Elephant and Castle will bring dozens of benefits to local people including new jobs and services, better shops and transport and much needed new homes.

We seek to get as much affordable housing from developments as possible through our planning policies, with a target of 35 per cent, although due to changes brought in by the Government this is subject to viability assessments. Southwark Council has one of the most ambitious council-housebuilding programmes in the country and always strives to deliver the maximum number of social rent homes in every development. The best way to tackle the housing crisis is to build more homes of all kinds and we need to be practical on how we deliver these homes, or risk them not being provided at all.

The claim that 3,000 residents on the former Heygate estate were “decanted” out of the borough is incorrect. All tenants were offered new social rented homes in Southwark, mostly in and around the area and 99 per cent were rehoused in our borough; the remaining 1 per cent chose to leave and were helped to do so. Leaseholders were offered a wide range of options to try and help them stay in the area as well. Tackling the housing crisis is difficult but we must all continue working together to get the homes built our residents so desperately need.

Cllr Mark Williams, cabinet member for regeneration and new homes at Southwark Council
London

The truth of it

I hate to be picky but you appear to have made quite a major spelling mistake in a headline this morning: Downing Street says UK is “categorically leaving customs union”

I think you’ll find that ought to be “catastrophically”. The two words may look quite alike but your readership should feel confident in expecting a quality title such as yours to pay proper attention to detail.

Julian Self
Milton Keynes