When it comes to Brexit, no one even really knows what they’re fighting for any more

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Listening at the weekend to the various white noise that passes for debate about Brexit in the run up to more ridiculous parliamentary votes on something or other to do with the Brexit mess, I had an out-of-body experience and came to a very simple, obvious conclusion: no one is even fighting over “Brexit” anymore – whatever that was.

It’s as if shady street hawkers enticed people into a spangled glitzy-looking restaurant with promises of free roast beef, double pudding and singing waiters, and somewhere between the entrance and the table at the back the heating was switched off, the music stopped, the lights went out, the decor faded to a mottled grey, and now the customers are being persuaded to stay in the restaurant and fight over whether to eat the dusty old dried flower arrangement – or not. And they are going at it hell for leather.

Meanwhile, normal life is going on outside…

Amanda Baker
Edinburgh

Jeremy Corbyn is correct that for ordinary people climate change is more important than Brexit, and rightly so.

For us, knife stabbings, acid attacks, domestic violence, alcoholism, drug addiction, road accidents, mental health issues from depression and panic attacks, floods, global warming, climate change, family breakdown, employment satisfaction ,among other things, are much much more important than Brexit and even nuclear wars, which are unthinkable and very theoretical.

Dr Munjed Farid Al Qutob
London NW2

MPs are ignoring the environmental impact of Brexit

We are living in times of great contradictions and turbulence. Young people are marching against climate change but it seems politicians are still not listening.

How else can we explain the drive by some MPs to insist that trade with the “world” is vital to the UK’s future? On the contrary, in terms of climate change we should be eating food grown as close as possible to our homes and trading with the nearest nations (the EU) to avoid even more carbon dioxide emissions than we are already making.

When will politicians wake up to this simple fact? We must reject all but the softest Brexit. Even better – have an informed Final Say on either the choice May has given us or to opt out of the Brexit process altogether.

Anna Radons-Harris
Fife

The main takeaway from Karen Bradley’s latest gaffe

The recent utterances by Her Majesty’s principal secretary of state for Northern Ireland, Karen Bradley, leads one to the inevitable conclusion that the British should have no hand, act or part in the future governance of Northern Ireland. Ditto for Gibraltar.

Liam Power
Dundalk

Would Theresa May listen to a fellow robot?

Personally, I feel it is unwise for a robot to be used to convey a terminal diagnosis to a patient, as happened in a Californian hospital recently.

However, I do think it could be very helpful if someone requested that we borrow said robot from the medical facility to tell Theresa May that her deal is, in fact, as dead as a dodo.

Robert Boston
Kent

The decision to censor Michael Jackson’s music is undemocratic

The recent alleged abuse case against Michael Jackson has shed light on a darker underbelly we call “democracy”. I would greatly appreciate if someone could answer me the following question: under what kind of logic would a radio station make the decision to stop playing music of a deceased artist based totally on a single-sided interview by two alleged victims of sexual abuse?

Censoring of such music is worrying, especially when the deceased artist has been extensively investigated by the authorities and proven not guilty in a court of law. Why should the artist’s music be censored based on allegations?

In a democracy, are we not innocent until proven guilty? Under what thinking process would prominent DJs and radio stations side with allegations and not with factual evidence? The disturbing truth in all of this is the fact that trial by social media is being held in higher regard than trial by a court of law.

If we adopt this fundamental principle of holding allegations or anecdotal evidence in a higher regard than empirical factual evidence, what type of society are we constructing? Can you imagine if we adopted this approach in our universities, in our scientific research departments, in our legal systems, in our hospitals and in our schools of education?

Caoimhe McQuillan
Drogheda