Phillip Inman reports that MPs have “won” access to TTIP documents, but can only view and not record them (MPs to see TTIP papers under strict rules, 19 February). What can the justification for this secrecy be when at the same time the government (and the EU) insist that TTIP is a good deal for all of us? Usually, when an individual or organisation has something that will benefit you, they are eager to tell you about it. With the honourable exception of Caroline Lucas, and I would hope some others, it seems incredible that our MPs either are, or are pretending to be, insouciant to the irony that they are being grudgingly granted limited access only to the details of a treaty that will demote the interests of democratically elected governments below those of multinational corporations.

Dave Hunter

Bristol

• Since it is being negotiated by the EU rather than the UK, should those opposed to TTIP vote leave?

Simon Smewing

Lewes, Sussex

• Once again, concern has been expressed about the potential impact of TTIP on the NHS (New trade deal could lock in NHS sell-off, says top lawyer, 22 February), and it is noted that David Cameron has the power to exclude the NHS from the trade deal. Indeed he has.

The Lisbon Treaty sets out the conditions under which the European commission conducts trade negotiations. The European council (the body that includes heads of government, and authorises the negotiations and validates the result) acts, in most cases, by qualified majority (at least 55% of members). However, unanimity is required for certain types of trade as specified in Article 207, Paragraph 4:

“The Council shall also act unanimously for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements: (a) in the field of trade in cultural and audiovisual services, where these agreements risk prejudicing the Union’s cultural and linguistic diversity; (b) in the field of trade in social, education and health services, where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them.”

So no aspect of TTIP with potential impact on the NHS can take place without the approval of the British government. This responsibility lies firmly in the UK and an unpopular outcome cannot be blamed on Brussels.

John Blackman

Reading, Berkshire

• I can understand why Unite is concentrating on the NHS, which it hopes will be exempt from TTIP, but the implications go far wider (Report, 22 February). Few commentators seem aware of the negative effect of TTIP on our ability to tackle climate change. Suppose in 10 to 15 years that several fracking firms were operating in the UK and the government decided the continued extraction of shale gas or shale oil were incompatible with our climate change commitments. Under TTIP, those companies could sue the British government and the result would either be massive compensation or the repeal of the UK’s Climate Change Act. The decision will not be taken by politicians, but by unaccountable lawyers meeting in secret and applying the terms of the trade deal.

It is significant that Cameron and leaders of the out campaign are united in their admiration for TTIP, but fail to appreciate that it will involve a huge transfer of sovereignty to unaccountable officials. EU plus TTIP will persuade a lot of voters to leave. Cameron needs to look again at this dreadful piece of legislation.

Dr Robin Russell-Jones

Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire

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