The difference in numbers between the Leavers and the Remainers was 1.27 million, and it would only take 635,000 to switch from Leave to Remain and the so called will of the of the British people would find itself in the minority.

There is some evidence to suggest that a large number of people have changed their minds having seen through the lying and mis-selling perpetrated by the Leave side, not to mention the constant bickering that has gone on over the last six months, especially in terms of the complexity of unpicking the legislation. They may even have asked themselves what the economy would be like in one, two, or five years’ time even though the predicted immediate economic apocalypse hasn't happened, yet.

They may be questioning whether sovereignty and immigration does in fact trump individual prosperity. Also, does the country have a proper functioning government at present? The 37 per cent of the electorate who voted to leave was not enough, in my view, to effect such a major constitutional change.

Theresa May has been pushed precipitously by the headbangers in Government to trigger Article 50 by the end of March when she should have really awaited the outcome of this year's various European elections. It may be that reform is in the air and remaining in the EU might well help that process. She would also do well to commission surveys of public opinion to try and establish what the British people really want.

If she gets this wrong, the country will never forgive her.

Robert Hubbard

London, N10

Can we trust business forecasts on Brexit?

As an anxious Remainer I felt brief reassurance when I read your report that a PwC survey found that 89 per cent of British company bosses were confident about their company's prospects despite Brexit.

But then I leafed back a few pages and read Andreas Whittam Smith's article where I learnt that the BOE Chief Economist Andy Haldane has criticised the performance of 75 to 90 per cent of British companies.

Could there be some correlation there?

Andrew Jackson

Cardiff

We need to approach Nato with suspicion

An obsolete Nato is also dangerous given its unipolar premise that the only legitimate near-abroad is that of the west and its client states. Needless to say, this is everywhere and anywhere. Such overstretch with its maze of article five tripwires not only renders foreign policy incoherent but is potentially destabilising. Turkey's continuing Nato membership, for instance, is far from reassuring and, at the other extreme, tiny Montenegro's forthcoming membership is worthy of a light opera.

Then there is the Russian “threat” to the Baltic states. What is amazing is Moscow's temperate response to Estonia and Latvia's gross violation of international norms in denying citizenship to those of its Russian minority who are not conversant in Estonian and Latvian respectively. Nato turned a blind eye when it granted membership to these two states. So much for the European Convention on Human Rights.

As for Ukraine, Nato and the west made matters worse by not acknowledging that it was a classic example of a young state that didn't naturally command the allegiance of all its peoples. Other examples are Georgia, Moldova and Azerbaijan.

Nato needs critical assessing more than unflagging support.

Yugo Kovach

Dorset

Michael Gove and Donald Trump are welcome to each other

It is interesting to note that the Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb “to gove” simply as “to stare stupidly” – it may now be supplemented with a definition for the similarly named noun as “a self-seeking, oleaginous opportunist”.

The OED, of course, defines the verb “to trump” (inter alia) as “to break wind audibly”.

I guess they were made for each other.

Graham Powell

Cirencester

Older Remainers are being ignored

Just a note about recent Letters concerning who voted remain and who did not, and the various analyses of that vote. There is comment about the youth vote versus the older.

In 2015 I joined a political party for the first time. I pay my dues but had not been active until the referendum vote. I gave out leaflets on the street. I spoke with and debated with anybody who stopped to talk.

The people who joined me, I don't think any of them were less than 30 years old. Most would have been over 50. I am 66. I and my colleagues voted Remain.

The suggestion that there is a youth vs old division on this, itself creates division.

The idea of remain is that we are in it together.

Terry Evans

London, W2

We should support John Lewis

Last Friday, Georgia congressman, civil rights icon, John Lewis, echoed what millions of Americans are thinking, namely that “President-elect is not a legitimate president”. Trump can hardly cry foul when he was the architect of the “birther” movement which falsely accused Obama of being a non-citizen.

If the Russians actively participated in hacking Clinton’s emails to tilt the election in Trump’s favour, then his legitimacy comes into question. FBI Director, Comey failed to explain why he chose to remain silent on the ongoing investigation of Russian hacking but felt no hesitation commenting on Clinton’s emails investigation which turned out to be inconsequential. Perhaps of even greater significance is whether the Trump campaign team colluded with the Russians. An investigation by Salon found 50 Republican electors in the Electoral College were illegally appointed, which casts further doubt on the legitimacy of Trump’s election.

Predictably, Trump’s criticism of John Lewis has created a firestorm. Contrast Lewis’s heroism in non-violent actions for justice leaving him close to death, with Trump’s highly pampered life.

During the height of the Vietnam War, Trump used his wealth and family connections to escape the draft. During this period, Trump and his father were sued by the Department of Justice for violating the Fair Housing Act of 1968 for discriminating against people of colour at his rental units.

Trump’s accusation that “Lewis is all talk” underscores his appalling ignorance. Under Lewis’s leadership Atlanta has become a thriving metropolis.