I moved to Germany in September 2015 with my family, when Brexit was a distant and highly unlikely possibility. I was of the opinion we should remain in the EU, but also realised something had to be done.

I sat in Germany and watched the Brexit debate (if you can call it that) unfold. From the start I was concerned by what was happening in Britain on both sides of the debate, but more so by some of those who wanted to leave, with mindless racist incidents on the increase, and false information at every turn. But also because I knew if Britain decided to exit the EU nothing would change in the eyes of the public.

Twenty-eight per cent of the British population voted to leave the EU (yes, 17 million is only 28 per cent), and – let us be honest – they voted on what they saw in their everyday lives, what was in front of them. They saw three million immigrants from the EU in Britain, and blamed them for everything: taking jobs that British people could do; overcrowded schools; a stretched-to-breaking point NHS; rent so expensive it is outside the reach of the ordinary working family; and lack of integration.

These points fuelled some, if not the majority, of Brexit voters, and on the face of it they were in part justified, not because of the immigrant element, but because of a lack of dedicated action by the government to improve the areas of concern.

What people forgot then and forget now, is if and when Brexit is achieved nothing will change. The perceived cause of all the problems will still be there, namely three million EU citizens in Britain. Theresa May has clearly said she hopes to be able to guarantee the rights of EU nationals in Britain, as long as UK nationals’ rights are guaranteed in Europe, which is the correct thing to do. I would prefer it if she unilaterally guarantee those rights, but little steps first I suppose. If nothing will change in the eyes of the public (with the exception of a new dimension, trade, industry and banking, which may well be badly affected by Brexit), why have Brexit at all?

Why not use the multimillions from taxes already raised from hard working EU nationals and a few billion from the billions they are going to spend on “improving” the Houses of Parliament, and spend it on rectifying the problems the public see every day and blame on immigration.

I fear for the future of Britain, not because of Brexit, but because of what it’s doing. I would say at this point before it all goes too far, if we ignore those who are shouting so loudly in favour of Brexit and just consider the facts then most people will turn against Brexit. But that relies in some parts on the media and politicians, so little chance of that.

Name and address supplied

Germany

Are we to be plagued by politicians doing the “right thing”? The referendum was a poorly conducted opinion poll. MPs are appointed to look after the interests of their electorate in accordance with their conscience. They should strengthen the Government’s negotiating position by requiring the Government to come back to Parliament for approval on the final terms. If that encourages Europe to offer different terms on the UK's participation in Europe, and MPs think they are worth considering, they should not be dismissed out of hand. Nothing is cast in stone. The US get a chance to change their president in 2020, when they know Trump better. We can have another “opinion poll” on Europe when we know the alternatives better.

Jon Hawksley

London EC1R

How can we be assured that the current MPs will have the ability to act in the best interests of the country during what will undoubtedly be the most complicated negotiations we have ever faced?

If they didn’t get the terms of the referendum right, what chance the Brexit negotiations?

Lesley Gross

Wantage

Theresa May doesn’t speak for women

Jane Merrick seems to be confused about the nature of the monster known as Trump (I’m sick of hearing that Tory feminism doesn't exist – if you say Theresa May can't speak for women when she meets Trump, you've given up, 23 January).

Whether speaking to Trump or to anyone, I have no confidence in Theresa May speaking for women. Or for the poor. Or for anyone not particularly wealthy. And if you're an immigrant or one of the few refugees to have made it to our shores, do not rely on Theresa May to speak for you. So, yes, I may have given up on her.

But to return to Trump. Theresa May's “very presence in the White House” that Jane Merrick champions as positive for women is all about politics and, by itself, sends absolutely no message to Trump about women whatsoever. Let's not pretend it does.

In any case, Trump is clearly not, per se, anti-women. After all, he has given his own daughter a high-profile role in his company and now in his nepotistic administration. He says he rates her skills very highly. OK, he referred to her publicly as a “piece of ass” and said he would be dating her if she weren't his daughter, but that's just the way men talk, isn't it?

Beryl Wall

London W4

UK Government should apologise to Palestinians

While the new US President Donald Trump has pledged to move the American embassy a few miles down the road from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the Prime Minister of Israel has announced plans authorising the construction of more houses in illegal settlements in the Palestinian quarter of East Jerusalem.

This is happening while Israeli Occupation Forces are busy destroying the villages of Palestinian families, people who have lived on their land for centuries, but who since 1948, have the misfortune to be “citizens” of Israel.

This is unjust, unfair and brutal. People who have never lived in the Middle East can move into Palestine, if they happen to be Jewish. While Palestinian families are forced to make way for more Jewish immigrants.

It is important to remember that this sorry state of affairs is the continuation of something our British government set in train 100 ago this year, with the 1917 Balfour Declaration. It is time our Government apologised and helped correct the historical injustices that we are responsible for.

Sue Cooke

York

Fighting pollution will improve the lives of our children more than hand-washing will

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) are advising that children need to be taught good hand-washing and drying techniques to help lower the likelihood of spreading germs.

The biggest threat to children’s health is surely pollution and CO2, from motor vehicles, and the faster they travel, the more fuel they burn, the more lung disease they create, and the faster sea levels rise.

Furthermore, according to Unicef, “children in The Netherlands are the happiest children in the whole wide world”, not least because they cycle to school. If we had zero tolerance of drivers abusing and skimming cyclists, and parking in cycle lanes, it would surely improve UK children’s health and well being, if not their parents.

When there’s a move for zero tolerance to drivers using mobile phones, zero tolerance to exceeding speed limits must surely be a far greater priority? If Donald Trump is going to generate more CO2, we must generate less.

Allan Ramsay

​Radcliffe

New diabetes research

An opportunity exists for Scotland to play an important role in the search for new treatments and even a cure for type 1 diabetes, which is why we hope that news that Scottish scientists are to lead new research into the effects of the autoimmune condition will inspire others.

There are more than 30,000 people with type 1 diabetes in Scotland – the third highest incidence in the world – and numbers are increasing.

Scotland has world class experts in medical research and an unrivalled database of patient records and samples available for scientific analysis. JDRF is a charity dedicated to funding type 1 research and we have committed nearly £4m to projects at Scottish universities. We believe that Scotland is ideally placed to help accelerate the path to a cure and look forward to others stepping forward to support us in that challenge.