Readers discuss the pros and cons of Brexit and frictionless trade between the UK and the rest of Europe

I take it Larry Elliott has his suits made by hand, drives a Morgan and/or rides a Brompton, drinks expensive English wine, and is currently only eating root vegetables with his British meat (Carney is right – globalisation needs reform. Brexit is a start, Journal, 14 February). My socialist hero William Morris discovered over a century ago that making things by hand and paying workers decently produced goods that only the rich could buy. Industrialisation and globalisation have meant ordinary people can, as long as they stay out of the clutches of universal credit, buy things undreamt of in Morris’s time. How many of them he would have admired, or thought worth having is another matter.

Undoubtedly, capitalism has produced a planet-destroying tide of dross that is not remotely useful, much of it made in parts of the world with little regard for worker or environmental protection. But few Chinese peasants starve now, and if workers in swathes of Africa, say, are poorly paid, it is that country’s leaders who are responsible, not the concept of globalisation itself.

I’ve signed many a letter and petition against agreements like TTIP, the transatlantic trade deal, trying to rein in the excesses of globalisation, and have even succeeded on occasion. Reining in the lobbyists and constraining the want-making advertisers would be a major advance. But attacking the European Union, the institution that is arguably still the most liberal – as opposed to neoliberal – in the world is not helpful.

If Larry Elliott wants to campaign against capitalism, that’s one thing, and I will happily join him, but not if it means starting by leaving the body that has given us so many social and environmental protections. Stay inside and promote reform.

Judith Martin

Winchester

• Politicians and journalists, with no economic background, use the terms “just-in-time production” and “supply chains” with an almost regal authority. So what a relief to read Larry Elliott who, as an economist, recognises that this is all about cheap labour and cheaper operating costs.

As he points out, the cost of manufacturing in eastern Europe is cheaper as long as we do not count the environmental damage of tens of thousands of 44-tonne lorries criss-crossing Europe belching out diesel fumes. This can be solved by substantially increasing the tax on diesel fuel, which would make it cheaper to have a short supply chain for just-in-time production. We need to move towards being a society that has as much local production for local consumption as possible.

There will always be a demand for some goods to be transported across Europe, and these should go by rail; one train can carry 50 times the load of one lorry. The final leg of the journey to the UK should be by the Channel Tunnel, which should be better than a ferry company with no ships! But the EU and successive British governments have discouraged rail and given subsidies to road transport so that in 2017 only 6% of Channel freight went by rail.

Michael Gold

Romford, London

• It seems to me that much the biggest problem with the various “free movements” that Larry Elliott talks about is free movement of capital. Even David Ricardo, an early proponent of countries sticking to the sectors they did best while happily importing other things, was wary about capital sloshing unhindered around the world and made a connection between its tendency to enrich the few while causing others to be impoverished and seek work abroad. He must have foreseen the social tensions that have arisen today over immigration.

One EU country that apparently seems to buck this trend is Germany, which still manages to raise capital within its borders to fund its own companies, along with managing to protect them from hostile takeovers, resulting in its impressive balance of trade performance. Is it the EU model that is deficient or just our own?

David Redshaw

Gravesend, Kent

• Larry Elliott is right to point out the bizarreness of many politicians who are against Brexit, yet who blindly defend just-in-time production, requiring climate unfriendly criss-crossing of components across continents and frictionless trade. However, the key point is what is the transition mechanism for getting us from today’s damaging “I live to consume” open market system, to one that rebuilds local economies more sustainably and in a way that reduces inequality.

The answer has to be a shift towards employing the positive friction of legislating to relocalise production and investment. Crucial to this will be the way it would challenge growth mania, and replace it with an increase in jobs-rich economic activity that reduces carbon emissions and the throughput of raw materials.

The powerful forces behind Brexit want a frictionless race to the bottom, the only counterforce powerful enough is a reformed Europe that makes protecting local economies and reducing inequality in every community its end goal.

Colin Hines

East Twickenham, Middlesex

• Constitutionalists have long argued that Britain risks becoming an elected dictatorship. Historically, this has been avoided by reliance on legislative and other checks and balances. Determined to force her interpretation of Brexit on a divided nation, Theresa May is systematically disassembling the remaining checks and balances. Her last-minute, “take-it-or-leave-it” vote, government by diktat, is demonstrable evidence of her dictatorial instincts. She must be deposed for the sake of democracy.

Robert Walker

School of Social Development and Public policy, Beijing Normal University, China

• Last week, we concluded a trade deal with the Faroe Isles (Report, 14 February) and went on a war footing with China. Did the appraisal objectives of Liam Fox and Gavin Williamson get muddled up?

Malcolm Ace

Burley, Hampshire

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

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

• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition