It is time for Brexiteers to 'deal with it', as they've instructed the Remoaners to do so

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

Monday 28 November 2016 16:31
comments
The new Ukip leader Paul Nuttall has been vocal on Brexit
The new Ukip leader Paul Nuttall has been vocal on Brexit

How amusing that the Brexit enthusiasts are outraged that British citizens may be offered the chance to retain their rights as European citizens. For months they have been telling us to “deal with it” and similar fatuous advice. Now the boot is on the other foot.

You quoted one source who claimed “the EU is now attempting to divide the great British public at the exact moment we need unity.” These people need to understand that a large proportion of the British people did not vote for Brexit, and there will never, ever be unity on the subject. They had better, as they love to say, “deal with it”.

Next they’ll be claiming that it’s outrageous for Britons to be able to have dual nationality. And after that they will declare that any Welshman who does not support the England rugby team is guilty of treason.

They don’t live in Little England, they live in a parallel universe.

Richard Francis
France

An open letter to Jeremy Corbyn on the Richmond Park by-election

Dear Jeremy Corbyn,

We met yesterday at Christian Wolmar’s Labour meeting for Richmond Park Constituency.

I am a paid up member of the Labour party, have campaigned for Ruth Cadbury and Sadiq Khan, and have found myself agreeing with, and defending to the hilt, everything you have said as Labour leader. Until this by-election.

Every time I have tried to explain Labour’s reason for standing in the Richmond Park constituency to friends/neighbours/colleagues I have struggled.

The argument against is simple.

For the last five elections (since 1997) Labour have averaged circa 10 per cent of the vote vacillating between five and 12 per cent. Labour simply cannot win in Richmond Park.

If Labour are going to depose the Conservatives nationally, they will have to work co-operatively with all progressive parties both locally and nationally. The Greens understand this and have stepped aside for the Lib Dems. UKIP have stepped aside for Zac Goldsmith. It would not be weakness, but pragmatic strength if Labour were to step down now. In doing so Labour would send a strong message to the rest of the country how the Conservatives might be defeated in the next General election. This could usher in new era of progressive cross party co-operation where all parties work together to remove the Conservatives. We cannot win if we do not do this.

In not doing so, Labour risks proving all the naysayers right. They can point to this by election as proof that Labour are indeed a protest party, that they have no plan for how they might gain power, and how they are vain and stubborn losers when they might be pragmatic, determined winners.

Every vote Labour get in this constituency will be taken from the Lib Dems, not the Conservatives.

I urge you, as Labour leader, and Christian Wolmar please to reconsider. Christian is an excellent candidate but he does not live in this constituency, and this is not his fight. Please encourage him and Labour to withdraw with honour and in the best interests of the party. In withdrawing, you and Christian would enhance the party’s national prospects immeasurably. In losing, and risking being seen as a contributor to a Goldsmith victory, Christian, your leadership and the Labour movement we all support, is undermined yet again as fatally ineffective. And crucially, this would not be by subjective opinion, but by demonstrable objective fact.

If on reflection you truly disagree with the rationale above please could you take a moment to share the rationale for continuing? At the moment it is not clear and I am sure Labour volunteers are coming up against this objection on the doorstep, whether vocalised or not, and will be the better for having an answer to it.

David Williams
Richmond

The youth have gone trigger warning crazy

Perhaps it was the fact that when they were our age our fathers and uncles were fighting and dying in WWII that kept students of my day from being as pathetic as Generation Snowdrop.

I can just imagination the contempt they would have shown had they heard that we had to be told in advance of any material in lectures which could be potentially “upsetting”.

Or if we were left “distressed” by the sex, suicide or violence in Shakespeare we would get deadline extensions, resits and even exemptions to ensure we weren’t “disadvantaged”.

This nonsense started in colleges in the “land of the loonies” (California) but has now spread to the usual suspects on this side of the Pond such as Edinburgh and the LSE.

Reverend Dr John Cameron
St Andrews

There is no pleasing the SNP

Two years on from the publication of the findings of the Smith Commission, the SNP is still today as it was then, the party determined to never be satisfied with anything. Just as back in 2014 the SNP dismissed the conclusions of the cross party commission with regard to additional powers for Scotland, it is equally clear that no realistically possible outcome of the UK Government’s Brexit negotiations will ever be considered good enough by the SNP. Instead Brexit, like more devolved powers, is viewed by the SNP as primarily a basis for stirring grievance.

The SNP are never happier than when complaining about not having enough powers, but appear distinctly nervous about actually using the powers they do get. Now there is talk of powers coming to Scotland as a result of Brexit, as decision making is returned from Brussels. Yet of course, the last thing the SNP want to contemplate is anything good coming of Brexit. For the never-satisfied-with-anything party, every route forward must be portrayed as bleak, unless of course it is the one the SNP are none too subtly preparing as the alternative when they decide that all else is not good enough.

Keith Howell
West Linton

Prison suicide rates are symptomatic of a wider problem

Whilst the statistics are indeed appalling, an interesting counterpoint is the suicide rate amongst men in the general population. I would suggest that there is a more widespread failure to address male mental health problems in general.

In fact you could argue, statistically speaking, prisoners are less prone to suicide than non-prisoners. The real tragedy is the lack of investment in ways to deal with this epidemic, investment that may even lead to less men ending up incarcerated in the first place.

Mark Burns-Lindow
Address supplied

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

View comments