Rafael Behr (The ‘left behind’ cliche is an excuse for political failure, 22 February) needs to go beyond castigating the complacency of the major parties with regard to their “safe” constituencies and voters. Yes, we do need to listen – but to which voices? There is a cacophony of reasons why people voted Brexit: poor job opportunities, ever weakening health provision, unaffordable housing, loss of sovereignty; no single cluster of these represents “the” reason why Brexit received a narrow plus vote last June. However, the main cause of these issues – as well as of many misplaced concerns about immigration – is the overly commercial/economic approach to globalisation that has driven financial growth above social benefit. Since the 2008 financial crisis, absolute standards of living for many people around the world have declined, and the disparity of reward between ordinary working people and those at the top of the economic tree has grown exponentially; and this was a key factor why voters in the referendum did not play according to the “rules” of politics.

But globalisation need not be solely about trade and profit for the few. The cultural benefits are vast and rarely spelt out: travel and a growth in knowledge about different parts of the world; intercultural communication and thus increased international understanding; access to new and stimulating ideas, beliefs, and practices; rapid movement of innovations. And above all, simply coming to know people from around the world, making more and more of the globe a source of friends rather than competition. Listening on its own is not enough – we need to make our global society more human-focused.

Paul Griseri

La Genétouze, Charente-Maritime, France

• It is clear that to leave the EU will cost us a fortune in accountants, lawyers, civil servants and negotiators, not to mention the reported £60bn “exit bill” we will have to pay. Now the City of London is warning not only of the loss of banking jobs but also of the threat to British and European financial stability (City’s stability ‘at risk from chaotic Brexit’, 22 February). Surely it is now time to call a halt to Brexit and think again about how best to respect the will of the people.

The amount needed to extricate us from the EU could be costed and, if saved by deciding not to exit, offered to those constituencies who voted leave. This would bring home to the “people who have spoken” the vast sums involved in this pointless exercise; they would feel empowered, able to vote on how to spend the money in their area, and perhaps would no longer be disenfranchised.

The past eight months have given pause for thought, remainers, Brexiters and Brussels alike. We are now in a different position than we were on 23 June, so border controls, immigration and much else could begin to be negotiated intelligently and robustly with the EU – which would arguably be in a mood to listen.

Pauline Hodson

Oxford

• Theresa May should not have resorted to making threats of Britain becoming an offshore tax haven (‘Blackmail’ tactics will backfire, EU leaders warn May, 20 February), but it cannot be said that she was not provoked by unpleasant bullying tactics on the part of EU officials, for example refusal to entertain informal talks prior to the triggering of article 50 (leading Mrs May and ministers to undertake informal talks with individual EU countries: surely not unreasonable in the circumstances); refusal to discuss a new trade deal between UK and EU until Brexit has reached closure, leaving the UK in a very dangerous limbo for an indeterminate period; and insistence that the UK be worse off after Brexit is concluded. Such tactics are vulgar and offensive.

The UK and the EU countries, represented by Brussels, are allies, not enemies. Surely both sides have the capability to enter Brexit negotiations in a professional manner and in the spirit of friendliness. If not, then I despair of the outcome.

Michael James

London

• The World Trade Organization tariffs of $7.6bn payable on the $204bn of UK exports to Europe (Front page, 21 February) is an average tariff of just under 3.8%. These tariffs are more than covered by the fall in sterling since the referendum. Additionally, the fall in sterling and WTO tariffs will increase the price of our imports, and this will createopportunities for UK producers. The more we can produce and consume locally, the more we can reduce our carbon footprint.

The reality is that the single market increases our carbon footprint, and all EU countries need to seriously consider the damage the single market is liable to cause to our children and future generations.

Michael Gold

Green candidate for Walthamstow in 2015

• I’ve yet to see any politician acknowledge the inevitable hike in energy use and thus carbon emissions when European trade is replaced with trade with America or the Ukip-lover’s old empire. To those we can now add the increased energy use involved in air-freighting goods to avoid the notorious Dover “stack” (Dover lorry checks will lock up region’s roads, experts warn, 21 February).

Judith Martin

Winchester

• Andrea Leadsom tells farmers to invest in machinery to boost productivity (Without migrant labour ‘food will go to rot’, 22 February) and thus circumvent the anticipated difficulties, post-Brexit, in recruiting labour. But better still, how about spending such “investment” money on actually paying a proper living wage, providing decent working conditions and employing from the many unemployed or low-wage people already living here?

Gary Bennett

Exeter

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

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