Brexit voters not 'bigoted'

Our team knocked on several hundred doors and spoke to many people when we helped to man information tables. Contrary to your correspondent's assertion that everyone who voted to leave was 'self-seeking, bigoted, narrow-minded and intolerant', the people we spoke to mentioned democracy, security and, only thirdly, immigration.

As one young working man said, 'I don't understand why people would vote so that, in future, they won't have a vote'. Another said that he didn't care if at some time in the future his pension was adversely affected; he wanted to know that the people he voted for were in a position to make appropriate decisions.

As for the 'promises of self-seeking, bigoted, narrow-minded, ruthless politicians', who was the writer talking about? Was he talking about David Cameron, who constantly referred to a 'reformed Europe'? He was, of course, correct that he could 'persuade' the other 27 countries to 'accept his reforms'. This was because he asked for nothing and received nothing which was not already in place. (See European Summit Conclusions, Feb. 2016.) Maybe he was talking about Ted Heath, who lied to the people in 1972 when he said that we were signing up to a Common Market when he knew full well that it was always intended to be a political entity, as he saw fit to confess in 1990. David Cameron even invoked Winston Churchill – what a pity he didn't see fit to use the whole quote.

As for self-seeking, why did so many big American banks throw millions of pounds into the Remain campaign? I doubt if it was altruism.

Many people resented the fact that the government spent millions of pounds of taxpayers' money sending out literature to every voting household in Britain in an effort to persuade people to its preferred option, as well as every government website telling people why they should vote to remain. Why did the government extend the period for registration, other than to try to capture the votes of younger people, many of whom hadn't bothered to register in time? Why did higher education establishments resort to giving students spurious reasons for telling them to vote to remain – such as, 'You won't be able to travel on InterRail tickets any more'? Why did the government give people in Gibraltar a vote? Why did they send out voting papers to Europeans resident in the UK?

As to the vexed question of immigration, most were concerned primarily that the country simply could not cope with an annual influx of 300,000 people – approximately the population of Nottingham every single year. What about housing, education and health care-associated costs? Such considerations are surely pragmatic rather than xenophobic.

Of course, the choice was never between leaving or remaining as the EU is now – it was between leaving or remaining as the EU will become. Yes, there will be some difficult decisions to be made and things may not always be easy, but at least it will be a UK government making those decisions and those politicians can always be removed.

Your writer mentions the time of war and of subsequent peace in Europe. Wasn't the EU risking re-igniting conflict by trying to extend its empire in enticing Ukraine away from Russia? After all, you can't use the excuse of 'democracy' – the EU doesn't know the meaning of the word. It is Nato which has kept peace in Europe, not the EU.

I have visited sites of both the First and Second World Wars on several occasions, with my parents who both served during WWII and also with our children to show them the consequences of war, to keep family memories alive and to show that such things should not happen again. As far as I am aware, the British Isles will always be part of Europe but that does not mean being part of an undemocratic controlling organisation such as the EU.

DIANE WARD,

mawfordemocracy@gmail.com