Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Could someone please explain to Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson that freedom of speech does not mean that you can say what you like, about who or what you like, in whatever way you like. Freedom of speech also carries with it the concepts of responsibility and accountability.
R Kimble
Leeds
Enough of Cleese, please
With regards to John Cleese’s recent remarks on Twitter, I wonder if Caribbean people feel like it’s no longer the Caribbean with Cleese and so many of his rich mates around? Perhaps many are motivated to come here, to get away from people like him?
David McDowall
Richmond, London
Critics of Johnson’s court case are missing the point
People who claim that the attempt to prosecute Boris Johnson is an attempt to reverse Brexit and crush the “will of the people” are missing the whole point. The “will of the people” would perhaps have been different if politicians had stuck to facts during the referendum campaign.
John Breeds MBE
Braunton, Devon
Will pride be the downfall of a second referendum?
Though by no means certain, it seems the probability of a second referendum as an alternative to Brexit is becoming increasingly likely. The outcome of a people’s vote could well be that the public opts to remain, now so enlightened as to the realities of what a no-deal Brexit might mean both politically and economically. But what if it is no longer the objective facts of the divorce that influence votes, but pride? What if the public is so disaffected with the way the EU has acted and responded to requests for further concessions, that even faced with the harsh realities of Brexit, they vote to leave again?
The truth is, Brexit is becoming less about the facts and more about the perceived ignominy in choosing to remain. So much time and political muscle, not to mention taxpayers money, has been spent trying to resolve the Brexit debacle that we, a great and powerful nation, surely cannot now go back to the EU and revoke Article 50 with our tails between our legs? But it is clear to so many that this is, at least now, the best option on the table should we just reach out and take it. We must not succumb to our pride, for we will surely be blinded by it.
Joe Blake
London N1
The EU parliament has lost all its meaning
Let’s face the truth, the EU elections had little to do with Europe and everything to do with national politics. There were hardly any serious debates or projects on European issues with the parties all preoccupied with their own position at home. The EU parliament is an image of national parliaments where the traditional major parties have lost ground to populist, ecological and other minority groups.
The EU parliament has lost its meaning. It is time to stop the colossal waste of money and form an EU parliament with around 300 qualified people – born in Europe and speaking a minimum of two languages – made up of a selected number of MPs from their own national parliaments who would spend part of their time in Strasbourg and report back to their governments.
Peter Fieldman
Address supplied
If indyref2 happens, the ballot should not be the same
The signs are that the SNP will once again try to weigh the terms of any second independence referendum in its favour.
During the preparations for the 2014 referendum, Alex Salmond managed to cajole the Electoral Commission to gift the advantage of the “Yes” response to his side of the argument, even though election experts believe it is worth a few percentage points to have the positive answer in your favour. Any doubt that this was a valuable benefit disappeared during the campaign when the SNP constantly focused on the negativity of their opponents who of course were having to argue the case for No.
In 2016, the Electoral Commission realised its mistake and for the EU referendum changed the question to allow for the more neutral answers of Remain or Leave. Yet the referendum bill now making its way through Holyrood is clearly trying to establish a precedent that the previous question used in 2014 can be reused. If the Electoral Commission is to maintain a reputation for an even-handed approach, it must follow its own more up-to-date view, ensuring any referendum rerun does not benefit one side or the other with a question requiring an obviously negative or positive answer.
Keith Howell
Scottish Borders
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments