The new prime minister, Theresa May, keeps saying “Brexit means Brexit” (Report, 14 July), but I’m no nearer to knowing what that actually means for our country, our businesses and our communities. Many MPs from all political parties share my concerns about the implications of Brexit and the lack of detail on what happens next. That is why this week I am holding a meeting to discuss establishing a cross-party group on Europe post-referendum. This group will aim to bring together some of the leading voices on this issue so we can collectively scrutinise the government’s proposals for Brexit Britain as they emerge.

This is essential because it’s now clear that the government carried out no contingency planning in the run-up to the referendum, despite this being a decision that will have a huge impact on our country and on our economy for generations to come. We now have chief Brexiteers Boris Johnson, David Davis and Liam Fox at the helm of negotiations, yet 48% of people voted to stay in the EU. In the months ahead it is absolutely vital their voices are also heard.

Catherine West MP

Labour, Hornsey & Wood Green

• I enjoyed your article (Frankfurt tries to tempt the bankers fleeing a post-Brexit Britain, 19 July). I was particularly impressed that the regional marketing agency set up a website welcometofrm.com just in case Britain voted to leave; a website they were “not expecting … nor wanting to be needed”. It went live the night the referendum result came in. So this one region of Germany seems to have done more thinking and planning for Brexit than anyone in the UK did. I fear our negotiators may find it difficult to match this level of professionalism once article 50 is triggered and the real bargaining begins.

Way Main Wong

Leigh-on-Sea, Essex

• Vernon Bogdanor is right to point out that freedom of movement in the EU is bad for both Europe’s richer nations and its poorer ones (If EU leaders listen, there could still be a second referendum, 19 July). Richer countries have to accept as many people as wish to come, regardless of the consequent social strains and the upward pressure on rents and house prices. Poorer countries lose many of their most dynamic and highly educated citizens. And now the EU is set to lose one of its major economies – the UK – and risks losing more, largely because of public concern about unrestricted inward migration.

The UK government should delay invoking article 50 and should work with other concerned countries to try to persuade the EU as a whole to make free movement optional for each country. The UK government should make it clear that it would then end free movement here and would hold a second referendum on leaving the EU. With freedom of movement gone, we could expect a large majority for remain.

Richard Mountford

Tonbridge, Kent

• Vernon Bogdanor and your letter writers (18 July) are right: bullying won’t work. If the EU’s leaders had any sense they’d do three things. First, they’d agree to negotiate without the need to trigger article 50. Second, they’d fight for the toughest terms for access to the EU’s markets, so as to make our future exit as unpalatable as possible. Third, at the same time, they’d address the fundamental flaws that even most remain campaigners agreed on, especially democratic accountability and freedom of movement – whether this latter is rational or not, it is a perceived problem that threatens to tear the EU apart. At the end of this, both the terms of leaving and the terms of remaining would be so substantially different from those on 23 June that either a new referendum or general election would be almost irresistible. But that depends on an intelligence and flexibility of approach – and, yes, ability to listen – that Brussels has not shown to date.

Charles Harris

London

• Your correspondents call for “free movement for all”. Were they asleep in the run up to and after the vote of 23 June? If you are a democrat, an environmentalist and an internationalist, I fail to see how you can support completely free movement of people. All the polls show that most people in richer countries want to control migration. To encourage huge numbers to come can only increase adverse environmental impacts and virtually always entails stealing the brightest and best from poorer countries.

Yet your signatories are not alone in calling for free movement for all. The normally excellent Global Justice Now and the Green party have made similar calls. But a snapshot of the potential scale of such mass migration was provided by a recent global Gallup poll, which showed that around 630 million of the world’s adults would like to leave their country and move somewhere else permanently, with over 40 million expressing a preference for the UK. So please can people go and talk to the non-politically obsessed about what they think, because Ukip and the right wing across Europe are already assiduously doing exactly that.

Colin Hines

East Twickenham, Middlesex

• As one of the (no doubt very many) Guardian readers who voted remain in the EU referendum, I was greatly angered by Larry Elliott’s comment (Brexit: time to try alternatives to failed policies, 18 July) that “many of those on the losing side of the referendum debate appear to actively want the economy to slide into recession in order to teach the 52% a lesson”. This is not how I feel. One of my reasons for voting for remain was the fear of the potential damage to the UK’s economy and social fabric if we left the EU, and I still worry a great deal about this. Surely no right-minded person would want there to be another economic recession following the vote, as this would damage us all in one way or another and would be against everyone’s best interests. Elliott must have been talking to some strange people.

Catherine Prescott

Cardiff

• When I saw an article by Vernon Bogdanor, I thought it might be an exercise in contrition. As an enthusiast for government by referendum, I assumed he might now want to recant. Instead he argues for a reformed EU, but without recognising that a referendum has excluded us from playing any part in a reform process. It is exactly this sort of consequence that makes government by referendum a very bad idea. Rather than hoping for another referendum to clear up the mess left by the last one, Bogdanor should simply admit that he has been wrong about the virtues of referendums.

Tony Wright

Birmingham

• Please stop printing (every day) endlessly negative news, articles and opinions about Brexit. My sister, distraught at the result, has remained in a depressed state ever since and you are not helping her to recover from the blow. Something a bit more positive would be welcome. Please try.

David Evans

Market Harborough, Leicestershire

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