Letters: Leave or Remain, the NHS must be priority for the UK government

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

The NHS has become a political pawn in the Brexit debate (PA)

I have just received another communication about the EU referendum. One paragraph in it suggests that as a country we would be subject to spending cuts of £36bn and this would mean less money for the NHS.

This feels like a threatened punishment if we leave. The only link between the money in the economy and NHS spending is government decisions. There is no automatic link to NHS spending. We already know this government's attitude to the NHS and to leave the EU is now being set up as an opportunity to further damage it. Leaving or staying in should not imply any impact on the NHS. The need for a properly funded health service for all is what should guide NHS spending.

Ashley Herbert

Huddersfield

Give meat the KO

Anyone still dubious about the benefits of a plant-based diet need look no further than vegan boxing world champion David Haye, whose fight on Saturday was a knockout – literally. Haye joins a growing list of elite meat-free athletes – including footballer Phil Neville, squash champion James Willstrop, and Olympic cyclist Lizzie Armitstead – who understand that plant-based foods provide all the protein, complex carbohydrates and other nutrients our bodies need to get stronger and faster, minus the saturated fats and cholesterol found in animal products. Of course, when one also considers that in the short time it took Haye to win, around a quarter of a million animals were killed globally for their flesh, the decision to go vegan – whether or not you're striving to be a champion athlete – becomes a no-brainer.

Jennifer White

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

London

How to speed up the Chilcot Inquiry

For most Inquiries – the time has come to do away with Maxwellisation. Instead all those named in a report should receive a copy ten days prior to publication. The benefits of this would be to speed up publication, and still allow those who are criticised in the report the opportunity to prepare their arguments, but they would have to put these out publicly.

I realise that Maxwellisation has not been the main delay in Chilcot, but for most inquiries this would speed things along, and the public would have more confidence in the outcome.

Gerry Beever

No Third Way in Syria

Everyone will admire the way Turkey has taken in and helped so many refugees from Syria and it should receive support from other countries in doing this, as President Erdogan says. The question of how to bring peace to Syria is a different matter. President Erdogan argues that “to give Syria’s democracy a chance to flourish” we must defeat Assad as well as Isis.

That assertion has become something of a dogma among the Western and Gulf powers also. I have never seen any serious debate about the question as to why, given the overwhelming need to end this terrible war, Assad cannot take part in elections, leaving his fate in the hands of the Syrian people. He can be removed from power in a peaceful way by elections. Of course people say he is a monster (which in itself has seldom stopped anyone having good relations with the West in the past) but he has significant support in Syria and cannot be overthrown except by war or extrajudicial assassination. Isis can be destroyed. Assad cannot be destroyed without also causing massive death and destruction in Syria and a high risk of creating yet another failed state.

The way to peace in Syria is to enforce a ceasefire between Assad and moderate rebels and destroy Isis. That is a realistic proposition. Then have elections. Insofar as possible, there should be justice, peace and reconciliation as in other countries coming out of civil strife and war. Then there should be a Marshall Plan for Syria, led by America and Europe with massive contributions from the Gulf States. David Cameron has said "there has to be Third Way" in Syria. After over five years of war surely it is clear that there is no Third Way.

Brendan O’Brien

London

Look to Jordan for a solution to the refugee crisis

Europe has not yet understood the enormity of the refugee crisis. Turkey is using refugees as pawns in their negotiations with the European Union. Turkey is not a poor country. It is ranked among the top twenty largest economies. On the human rights scale, writers, journalists, political opponents have been unlawfully prosecuted and arbitrarily jailed. The Kurdish minority is suppressed and long denied their basic inalienable rights of freedom of expression and self-determination. Corruption is rampant.

Is it therefore a sane idea to grant eighty million Turks free visas to Europe? Who can guarantee that millions won't sneak into the UK, putting its national security at risk, taking advantage of free NHS, and placing enormous burdens on our feeble infrastructures? On the other hand, Jordan has received millions of refugees fleeing war and destitution zones. It is a poor country with little natural endowments. It has made tremendous strides in bearing the brunt of refugees and in return received scant attention and economic incentives from donors and the global media alike. The world cannot overlook the urgency of the moment. Jordan is the only remaining citadel of tolerance and moderation in a troubled region. The global community should forge educational, health and economic partnerships with countries like Jordan, at the forefront in the fight against terrorism and extremism.

Munjed Farid Al Qutob

London

Devolution key to stronger UK democracy

The two sides of the EU debate continue to indulge in their unseemly playground squabble.

Clearly the prominent members of the Conservative party are not sufficiently grown-up to be in charge of anything at all, let alone a country. Is this not strengthening the case for a radical reform of our polity?

Regional English parliaments elected proportionately would be more in touch with the people, and more answerable to them. They, along with the parliaments of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales could have a modest number of representatives in a UK parliament, so maintaining the Union. A similar number of the great and good (preferably not many of them politicians) could be elected to an upper house. And in a properly federal system, in which decisions are made at the appropriate level, we could maintain our relationship with Europe. Undemocratic, unrepresentative, unwieldy Westminster would no longer be required.

The Westminster turkeys aren't about to vote for Christmas, but one can dream. . . .

Susan Alexander

South Gloucestershire