What a relief to read the letters from Dick Taverne and others saying that Brexit should be fought rather than meekly accepted as inevitable (Letters, 19 June). However, I’m afraid that none of your correspondents mentioned the key change required before a “remain and reform” package has a cat’s chance in hell of succeeding in a second referendum. That is the need for the EU to amend the treaty of Rome to allow member states to decide how many people they want to come into their countries. The usual defeatist response to this is that the treaty of Rome’s four freedoms are somehow immutably writ in stone. Yet when researching the practicalities of a transition to a treaty of “home”, prioritising the protection and rediversification of European economies, I cited a range of EU leaders and institutions calling for a rethink of this issue.

Michael Heseltine has suggested that Macron and Merkel might team up to offer a deal on immigration such that the UK could stay in the EU. Were Labour to champion such an approach, it would appeal to voters by emphasising UK training programmes to eventually fill the jobs that might otherwise be taken by new EU migrants. But most importantly, the party should emphasise its belief in internationalism by bringing to an end the permanent theft of the brightest and the best from generally poorer countries whose taxpayers have paid for their education, but who are denied the benefits of it through migration.

Colin Hines

East Twickenham, Middlesex

• It was disappointing to see the letters from Dick Taverne and Keith Richards and Nick Clegg’s Three steps to a soft Brexit, all saying that the European Free Trade Association countries have no say in making and development of regulations. This is not true. Under the European Economic Area agreement (which established the relationship between the EU and Efta countries), there is a whole section VII, which sets out the cooperative procedures between contracting parties. In particular there is article 99, which establishes consultation procedures; article 100, which gives parity of Efta experts; and article 102, which says that the EEA joint committee shall make every effort to find mutually acceptable solutions. In addition, there is the ultimate right of derogation. Decision-shaping is built into how Efta operates this relationship. It is true that the commission formulates initial proposals for regulation and after the lengthy consultation can pass regulations into law. This is the case now with qualified majority voting of EU members, and on leaving the EU the UK would be totally subject to any regulation passed without even the opportunity to use its vote. As can be seen from the report of the Norwegian minister for the EEA and EU affairs to parliament on 18 April, Norway has a very constructive and involved engagement with the EU. I do hope that the UK will come to understand how well the Efta model would work for us.

Tony Orchard

Exeter

• In the midst of renewed warnings from big businesses on the impact of immigration controls and leaving the EU single market (Report, 20 June), those who consider that ignoring the key concerns of the leave vote is a good idea should also consider that ignoring the democratic process isn’t. The leave result happened for a reason, and Brexit reflects the genuine hardship that immigration and the single market have created for a significant percentage of the electorate. This hardship is being experienced not just in terms of a lack of jobs, infrastructure and services to meet needs, but also in the huge failure to recognise that social and cultural change, often along a bumpy road, has to be allowed to evolve, not be imposed – particularly by those “at the top” who are simply not affected by the negative impacts of their own policies and beliefs.

The demand is not for “no immigration” from the EU, or elsewhere for that matter. Most people on both “sides”, of all hues, across the country, believe that immigration is part of the lifeblood of any society, but must be at a responsible level. If Theresa May, therefore, is to honour the demand for responsible and sustainable immigration as a core reason for the Brexit vote, then she must negotiate to reduce the current free movement of people through the EU single market, despite the pressure to stay in power at any cost and whichever way the cross-party links with the DUP and any others now develop.

Frances Peck

Kingsbridge, Devon

• There are already many EU rules and regulations to manage movement and monitor migration between the EU countries, and from outside. Many we haven’t even enforced. Why is it beyond our political imagination and negotiating skill to expand them? I believe we can achieve a managed migration agreement, as Keir Starmer suggests. This agreement helps protect working communities (and not only in Britain) against the unscrupulous corporate redeployment of labour to undercut existing wage levels. We know that the UK economy desperately needs migrant labour, whether from the EU or non-EU, at least to present levels. Managed migration, that prioritises such essential services like the NHS, seems a perfectly sound and consensual basis for negotiating with Brussels. A Labour government is the only alternative successor administration, and acknowledges that migration or population movement is still an issue, pushing it towards leaving the EU. For the 52%, a convincing deal on managed movement certainly will not solve all the economic issues of austerity, but it does speak to the communities’ immigration concerns. It’s not a soft Brexit that we need, it’s a hard non-Brexit, and the negotiators would ideally be cross-party given the threats to our national society.

Nigel Young

Editor in chief, the Oxford International Encyclopedia of Peace

• Your editorial (Theresa May’s Brexit needs to be deflected by facts not delusions, 17 June) says that the EU referendum result wasn’t about immigration but was about economic anxiety. What a wonderfully twisted, metrocentric spin. An Ipsos Mori poll taken just before the referendum showed that immigration was seen as the biggest issue (48%) that would influence people’s vote. The economy scored 27%. A Lord Ashcroft post-referendum poll found that 33% of leave voters said the main reason was that leaving offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders. Only 6% cited trade and the economy. A July 2016 Economist analysis concluded that high numbers of migrants don’t bother Britons; high rates of change do.

Chris Hughes

Leicester

• You report that “The Irish border is a fraught issue and neither side has advanced detailed ideas in public on how to achieve the shared aim of avoiding a hard border” (Timetable clock is ticking to March 2019, 19 June). What makes this even more difficult is the hold the DUP now has over the Conservative government, and its insistence that Northern Ireland must not have “special status” within the EU. Under the terms of the Good Friday agreement it already does. Everyone born in Northern Ireland has an absolute right to Irish – and thus to EU – citizenship. This is a special status. To further complicate the issue the DUP does not want a hard border, but this cannot be avoided without recognition of this unique status. It is also very difficult to envisage a soft border if the UK, and Northern Ireland as a part of it, leaves the single market and customs union. Something has to give.

Declan O’Neill

Oldham

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

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