Gina Miller’s success in winning a parliamentary vote for whatever deal is finally struck between Britain and the EU was admirable, but it is obscene to invoke the India-Pakistan partition in 1947 in discussing Brexit (Britain must ask for more time to negotiate Brexit, 12 August). Others have compared the Brexit vote with Munich in 1938. Both the partition and the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany and the world war that followed were devastating events in human history, with the loss of millions of lives. Britain’s leaving the EU will certainly be disruptive, but its consequences cannot be predicted and it is highly unlikely that it will lead to a world war or massacres of innocent people.

Since June last year remainers have accused Brexiters of being guided solely by their emotions, but the invective directed against leave voters has been equally emotional, sensational and utterly sentimental. The EU as it has developed is a large bureaucratic association, making decisions which in many cases have not been remotely beneficial to the peoples included in it. A prime example is the treatment of Greece over the past few years. It is time for both sides to calm down and try to work out a sensible and humane solution to the problems that arise from the decision to leave the European Union.

Linda Edmondson

Rowley, Shropshire

• I consider myself in the Guardian-reading demographic, I am well educated, middle-class, and my friends know me to be a kind and caring person who treats all with respect and inclusivity, regardless of background, sexual orientation, ethnicity or political beliefs. However, as I voted to leave the EU, I find myself having to listen to hate and prejudice from remainers about leavers.

A phenomenon I find difficult to understand is the remainer who berates leavers in company where they have no idea of who voted what or why. I can understand them doing this to some extent when they are in Cambridge or London, but even in those cities not everyone voted the same way – do my friends not understand this? I can only conclude that either they do not care who of their friends they insult, or it is impossible for them to comprehend that – in the company of anyone who does not look or sound like the “Daily Mail‑reading scum” they imagine all leavers to be – they are perfectly at liberty to imply, with impunity, that we leavers are all stupid and racist, or just plain disgusting.

Vince Cable was recently quoted on the BBC news as saying “For the Brexit martyrs, paradise beckons.” Comparing the old and leavers to jihadis makes me really angry, but no longer surprised, as this is what I have come to expect from the so-called tolerant, open, inclusive and caring section of society. Guardian reader, please think before you speak.

Name and address supplied

• There is a nasty whiff of jingoism and nationalism creeping into the arguments of left Brexiters. The shadow trade secretary Barry Gardiner’s implication that Norway is a “vassal state” (Opinion, 25 July) is the latest, most offensive, example. Norway is a prosperous country outside the EU but within the single market. (Jeremy Corbyn, please note.) It has successful state-owned utilities and a government sovereign wealth fund to envy. (Larry Elliott, please note.) It has a distinguished role in brokering conflict resolution, most recently in Colombia.

The idea that a progressive UK can only exist independently of the EU, single market or the European Free Trade Association (Efta) is a myth. The UK has no cost-free options after the referendum, but Labour has a political choice. Does it see the UK’s future as close as possible to our nearest neighbours or apart from them? If it wants to protect jobs, the environment, security and cultural links, it must go for cooperative partnership. That means keeping all options on the table and working for compromises with our European partners. The alternative is to give cover to May and Murdoch as they drive for hard Brexit. The “socialism in one country” dreamers have to make up their minds.

Jon Bloomfield

Birmingham

• Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett is right that Jeremy Corbyn didn’t get us into this mess (Brexit will be catastrophic. Yet I still support Jeremy Corbyn, 7 August), but a more critical assessment of the role he played during the referendum campaign is needed. Yes, many Labour supporters voted to leave the EU, but many also believed that this was the official Labour party position.

Imagine where we would be now had Corbyn clearly articulated Labour’s real position and made a positive case for remaining in the EU. He didn’t, because he’s a shrewd political operator who recognises that it is better for him to fudge his position. Were he genuinely authentic he would have been open about his anti-EU stance during the referendum campaign and both leadership contests. Of course, had he done this, he might never have won Cosslett’s vote.

Sydney Nash

London

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters