The announcement by the prime minister that ministers will be able to campaign on both sides in the referendum on EU membership is quite remarkable (Report, 6 January). Whatever the outcome of the renegotiation, the government will not be making a unified case for remaining in the European Union. Not only does this move the UK closer to the exit door, but it witnesses the end of the concept of collective cabinet responsibility. It clearly smacks of hypocrisy for David Cameron to attack Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn for having a divided shadow cabinet when it came to the debate on military intervention in Syria, while he is now happy to have those inside his own cabinet campaigning against the government line.

We also have the spectre of ministers calling for withdrawal from the EU attending and speaking at council of minister meetings, a scarcely credible position and one that will significantly weaken the UK position. Exit from the EU would pose a direct threat to jobs, investment and international influence. It is more important than ever that those who support the UK’s continued EU membership stand up and make the case as strongly as possible.

Alex Orr

Edinburgh

• At last there is an admission – from Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England – that immigration is driving down the wages of our lower-paid workers (Stalling UK wage growth set to revive debate over migrant workers, 30 December). How is it that it takes our leaders so long to come to a simple conclusion that anyone with common sense realised years ago? It is obvious that if supply outweighs demand, then prices (wages) are driven down and job vacancies are reduced. It is also obvious that the more people that come into the country and visit the hospitals, the more stretched they become, which creates longer waiting times; and the more children that go to our schools, the bigger the classes will be. It is also obvious that the main cause of all of this is the EU.

Gary Fedtschyschak

Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire

• With the prime minister caving in to demands to allow his ministers to campaign to either leave or remain in the EU referendum, the reality of Brexit draws closer. The public have not had a say on our EU membership since 1975, therefore it is vital the debate is held in a cordial and fair manner. It is a deep shame Guy Verhofstadt MEP is willingly skewing the debate by insisting our security relies on our membership of the EU (Opinion, 5 January). It does not.

It is quite astonishing Verhofstadt did not mention Nato once. To make things clear, Eurosceptics do not want to leave the military alliance which has secured peace over the continent since 1949. The EU was supposed to be a trading organisation. As much as Brussels wishes to build a federal European army with its own flag, insignia, and uniform, it will never have the consent to do so. Most EU member states are in Nato and it is entirely wasteful to duplicate resources because of an ideological attachment to the failed European project.

Jayne Adye

Director, Get Britain Out

• If, as you report (24 December), democratic safeguards are being dismantled in Poland, shouldn’t that country be told to leave the EU? Poland has gained so much from membership, perhaps the risk of leaving will bring its government to its senses. In my opinion by far the most important function of the EU is to protect human rights and democracy. Perhaps a similar ultimatum should be made to Hungary, which shows a similar disregard for European values.

Martin Cooper

Bromley, Kent

• I was encouraged to see Dr Mike Galsworthy, a long-time political activist with Scientists for Labour and now Scientists for EU, calling for more debate on the impact of Brexit on areas such as science (Opinion, 1 January). This has been lacking up until now. The Leave.EU campaign has brought many articles by Dr Galsworthy to my attention, but I have yet to see any platform being given to scientists like myself who dispute his claims. I have worked in research for decades and the worst blow ever dealt to my own field of cancer and immunology is undoubtedly the EU clinical trials directive.

Plainly a product of the enormous lobbying power Big Pharma has been able to concentrate in Brussels, its introduction was estimated to have doubled the cost of cancer trials and halved the number of non-commercial clinical trials in the UK. However, in my own experience the situation is actually far worse, with what used to cost £100,000 now costing at least £2m. So it is extremely difficult to make any progress without the backing of the big drug corporations, stunting innovation and increasing costs for the NHS.

As for collaboration and funding, I don’t believe they would be hurt by Brexit. European science is bigger than the EU, as the European Space Agency and Cern clearly demonstrate, and we’re net contributors to the EU budget.

Professor Angus Dalgleish

St George’s Hospital, University of London

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