Two articles on the same day – one by Jonathan Freedland, one by Ian Jack – provide usefully related perspectives. One is of the battle for the votes of MPs from England’s post-industrial regions (The mining town MPs should not be tempted by May, 2 February), the other on the centuries-long background to the decline of these regions (From north to south, the seeds of division date back centuries).

Mrs May is offering inducements to Labour MPs representing former mining communities in the hope of securing their Brexit support. While any such offers should be grabbed while they’re going, they are not likely to go anywhere near to addressing decades-long neglect, or be maintained for the decades probably needed to sustain change.

It would be illuminating to have an EU perspective. Ewan McGaughey reports that Germany spends around 1.3% of GDP on forms of state aid, compared with the UK’s equivalent 0.5% (LSE British Politics and Policy, 12 December). What proportion of this aid goes to industrially declining regions? How does the UK’s regional investment compare with Germany’s?

Freedland is absolutely right when he says that “the remain camp should have been first and loudest” in promising more regional support. However late in the day, remainers must forcibly proclaim the European argument for regional state aid before any final Brexit decision is made.

June Greenwell

Silverdale, Lancashire

• Jonathan Freedland quotes Professor Rob Ford, who effectively debunks the notion that Labour MPs in leave-voting constituencies will lose their seats if they don’t appease leave voters. Despite the critical state the country is in, MPs continue to put parochial party interest before those of the country. Which is what got us into this mess in the first place. Parliament has failed in its attempts to wrest back control of the Brexit process from the doomed, partisan approach of the Conservative government.

With 29 March looming and the inevitability of social upheaval, why wait? We need to take to the streets every day in mass protest, demonstrating the civil responsibility that our leaders have failed to do, in a final attempt to force them to get real: to postpone the implementation of article 50 and set up a people’s assembly, the outcome of which will inform a subsequent referendum debate.

Steve Wells

Claygate, Surrey

• Owen Jones (It’s absurd to blame Labour for the Tories’ Brexit mess, 31 January) is right. Unfortunately, Labour tarred themselves with the same brush in supporting Brexit in their manifesto.

That is the real complaint against Labour, because it highlights the fact that there has been a vacuum in the pro-Europe camp for a leadership that could have made the case over the last two years for remaining in the EU.

Such a leader would be pointing out the advantages of the EU at every moment, spearheading a drive to gather support and electrifying the opposition to bring a powerful counter-force to the Tories.

Labour may not have the numbers, as Jones says, to make a difference, but the narrowness of the debate, much like the referendum, suggests that a well-managed campaign for staying in the EU might have changed the outlook as the leave promises evaporated.

So while we can’t blame Labour for causing the fiasco, it must take its share in the failure to provide a realistic and safe alternative – which right now is to stop Brexit.

John Ellis

Tavistock, Devon

• Owen Jones says of a second referendum, “the numbers are not only not there for another vote, they are not even close”. I have had the privilege of campaigning with Owen closely on a number of issues down the years. I cannot think of a single occasion when we decided to drop our campaign in advance because we calculated that there was no parliamentary majority for it.

Why is Brexit different? The situation has changed rapidly since the 2017 general election. At this stage in the Brexit process it has become clear that no pragmatic exit that protects jobs and growth will satisfy the fanatical demands.

Labour members understand this situation. They are desperate to elect a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn to carry through a radical programme. But they are also well aware Brexit puts that agenda at risk.

At conference last year they made their position crystal clear. Utilising the limited democratic mechanisms that exist in the party, they won a commitment to campaigning for a public vote if they could not get a general election. The motion even warned the Tories “they should not be afraid to put that deal to the public” if they believed it was a good deal for Britain.

There are now reports of members leaving the party. Although the numbers leaving have been disputed, I have seen for myself that despondency has set in among parts of the membership and our voters. I urge all members to stay, but they need to be listened to.

Owen understands more than anyone the power of hope and enthusiasm in politics. No one is going to get up at 6am to head to a marginal constituency to campaign for a “permanent customs union”. Our members are looking for vision and narrative about a better world.

With Brexit in crisis, Labour needs to present a socialist alternative. Committing to a new referendum where the British public get a chance to think again is just one part of this picture. But to renege on what the members have demanded would imperil the spirit and vitality of the Corbyn project. Surely, the party leadership must understand this?

Luke Cooper

London

• For too long, the focus of Mrs May and Mr Corbyn has been inwards to keep their respective parties from splintering, putting the short-term interest of party over country. Owen Jones does not admit to Corbyn’s failure.

In his attempt to disguise the failure of Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour to provide leadership on Brexit, Jones claims equivalence where there is none. Yvette Cooper pledged in 2017 not to “block Brexit” simply for the sake of retaining the status quo. There is no breach of trust with her leave-voting constituents to stop a no-deal Brexit that could do immense harm to her own constituents. There is no moral equivalence between her stand and that of someone like Boris Johnson, who promised a painless Brexit and who now refuses to ask the electorate if they had in mind the terms of a Brexit which do not deliver what he promised, but which he now supports. There is no breach of trust with the electorate if the Labour leadership persuades Labour MPs to vote for a second referendum on the Brexit terms that are now emerging as acceptable to the government and the EU.

SP Chakravarty

Bangor, Gwynedd

• Your list of 14 Labour MPs who supported the Conservatives on crucial votes on Wednesday (Labour rebels vote against attempt to extend article 50, 30 January) shows that most represent economically deprived constituencies.

The leave campaign persuaded voters in these constituencies, falsely, that they should blame the EU and European immigrants for the problems they face, rather than neglect by successive British governments over too many years. A no-deal Brexit, likely to be followed by disruption of imports and emergency cuts in public investment and spending, will make their situation worse. Responsible MPs should look to their voters’ long-term needs, not cower before the populist anger generated by a dishonest referendum campaign, led by rightwing ideologues.

William Wallace

Liberal Democrat, House of Lords

• Few maintain that any form of Brexit will benefit our country, but we should be clear that women will suffer most: a Fawcett Society and Women’s Budget Group report shows that women will be hit hardest by an economic downturn.

The wider Brexit debate in the press is dominated by men (a 60-40 split on major news programmes) but we expect more from our party. A YouGov poll showed that 87% of Labour women back a second vote. At the 2018 Labour conference, the agreed position on a second referendum was that if the party could not get a general election, “all options remain on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”. As this is policy, the leader and shadow cabinet should be at the forefront on this issue.

Women are feeling increasingly alienated from the movement that could save the country from a disastrous Brexit. Labour has a responsibility to protect the rights and standard of living of all women living in the UK. We call on Jeremy Corbyn to be true to his word, to represent the women of the party, and let this democratic movement be led by its members. The only option now is to call for a referendum on Theresa May’s deal and campaign in that referendum to remain in and reform the EU.

Councillor Octavia Holland London borough of Lewisham, Sarah Veale Chair, Lewisham East constituency Labour party, Fiona O’Farrell Vice-chair, Richmond Park CLP, Gayle Roberts Harrogate and Knaresborough CLP and 22 others Councillor Louise Krupski London borough of Lewisham, Liz McShane, Tottenham CLP, Councillor Amanda De Ryk London borough of Lewisham, Sarah Hayward Former leader, London borough of Camden, Lizzie Worth Streatham CLP; Anashua Davies Secretary, Old Bexley and Sidcup CLP, Councillor Eva Stamirowski London borough of Lewisham, Jessica Leschnikoff Maidstone and The Weald CLP, Rosamund Cox Women’s officer, Lewisham East CLP, Councillor Sophie Davies London borough of Lewisham, Deborah Genders Vice-chair, Richmond Park CLP, Laura Vogel Women’s officer, Bromley and Chislehurst CLP, Eileen Means Council candidate, Bristol West CLP, Councillor Peymana Assad London borough of Harrow, Su McConnel Chair, Monmouth CLP, Councillor Sophie McGeevor London borough of Lewisham, Catherine Fookes Welsh Assembly member candidate, Monmouth CLP, Councillor Susan Wise London Borough of Lewisham, Leonora Headley Witham CLP, Pauline Dall Vice-chair, Lewisham East CLP, Amanda Peters Shipley CLP, Laura Davies Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire CLP

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

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

• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition