Rafael Behr is right (May is thinking big but Britain will be smaller than ever, 18 January). We need to understand the circumstances under which Ted Heath’s generation spent nearly 20 years seeking membership of the Common Market. It was not sought in any idealistic spirit of the comity of nations (it was anathema to Labour’s postwar government) but in reluctant resignation, as a lifeboat, the last opportunity to reverse long-term economic decline.This mistaken belief ended up as yet another excuse to put off the reform of our economy.

This motivation for membership led to perennial misbehaviour inside the EU once we had forced the door open, a product of our deep-seated cultural inability to work in a collegiate system where each member had a vote. Contrast this with the UK’s contentment in the security council, acting as the US’s ADC while able to look down on the lesser nations not in the top team.

While I voted remain and believe the departure now envisaged will be highly problematic economically in both the short and medium term, I am reconciled to it as a necessary reality check that this country has postponed for several generations. In the long term perhaps a more resilient and cooperative polity (including overdue constitutional reform) may emerge.

John Crawley

Beckermonds, North Yorkshire

• Has anyone else noticed (May’s Brexit threat to Europe, 18 January) that the prime minister wants to create an economy that works for everyone, yet is cutting her ties with countries that have achieved that (low inequality, good public services, strong labour laws) and cuddling up to the country that has one of the highest rates of inequality in the west, threadbare public services and little protection for workers?

Carolyn Hayman

London

• Peter Hain’s revolt (Report, 21 January) might be more effective if he could persuade Labour MPs, especially Keir Starmer, to accept Paul Mason and others’ repeated reminders that under existing EU rules the free movement of labour can be suspended even for lengthy periods. If Labour aims to protect jobs and the cost of living in the interests of the ordinary members of society, it ought to fight to amend the immigration regulations and retain membership of the EU or at least the single market. To refuse to apply for article 50 this year would allow the electorate to see if restricting immigration as soon as feasible would be sufficient to meet its objections to the current situation; if it does not, then a general election or further referendum could be called about which form of alternative outside the EU it would prefer. Important constitutional questions must not be dismissed as casually as the misinformed referendum suggested, and even the Labour MPs must vote in the interests of the UK as a whole, not just of their party leaders.

John Veit-Wilson

Newcastle upon Tyne

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

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