David Cameron's treatment of Corbyn in Parliament was 'sickening'

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

The treatment of Jeremy Corbyn by his MPs and by David Cameron has been a betrayal (Rob Stothard/Getty Images)

I hope Labour MPs are thoroughly proud of themselves for their treachery.

Seeing Eton-educated David Cameron bullying a decent, principled man like Jeremy Corbyn in the House of Commons was a new low in these turbulent days.

Sickening. Thank goodness we won’t have to see Cameron’s smug and patrician behaviour for too much longer.

Penny Little

Oxon

I wonder if Jeremy Corbyn has ever considered his shared initials with a person who was also bullied by leaders and used as a scapegoat? David Cameron was back to his bullying best on Wednesday before a braying bunch of “honourable members” from both sides of Parliament. Isn’t it amazing to observe how Corbyn has been betrayed by his “disciples”? And this poor, broken-looking man has taken each blow with grace and dignity.

It is horrible to watch such a modern-day crucifixion.

L Findlay

Address supplied

No clear majority

I keep hearing Brexit camp claiming they have won a 'democratic' election with a resounding majority 3.9 per cent of those who voted or by obtaining the votes of 40.5 per cent of those entitled to vote. I do not entirely agree with this.

Due to the up-front arrogance of Remain in totally underestimating its opposition and in particular the highly disadvantaged, using the EU as a scapegoat for the UK Government, they never even considered whether an achievement by either side of 50.1 per cent of the vote would be a sufficient margin to win the day.

My experience is that most organisations choose a level of 75 per cent or thereabouts in order to decide major changes – for instance, those changing their constitution or company's articles of association. I understand, for instance, that Denmark has different levels for different types of referenda. Deciding whether smoking in public places is to be tolerated or not, for example, is a very different kettle of fish to walking out of the EU. The same is probably true for other nations.

Our referendum showed no clear majority whatsoever on a very important and fundamental matter. The Conservatives will never be able to offer a manifesto based on Brexit's promises (especially now that the latter have been now been wiped from its website) and many will come to question their earlier Leave vote. Indeed, as Matthew Norman suggests, many might well then entertain a second “clarifying” vote on a 75 per cent majority basis before a reluctant majority of Remain MPs predictably decide to sign relevant Article 50, placing their jobs above the interests of the country.

Michael du Pré

Buckinghamshire

Give us the facts

A large proportion of British citizens are still bewildered about the key arguments on Brexit.

We need a schedule of key facts, agreed by both sides, before we make any more crucial decisions.

As a litigation lawyer, I have very little difficulty arranging this in even the most bitter domestic and business disputes. It works because the parties know that there is a deadline, that their figures will be checked, and that an independent referee (the judge) will easily see any attempts at evasion or foul play.

Party political bickering creates fog, and a full royal commission to establish the facts would take years, but an agreed schedule could be produced within weeks.

Nicholas Waller

Address supplied

Article 50 in the hands of the PM

It seems to be assumed that the PM can activate Article 50 to take us out of the European Union when he chooses. Is it not a matter for Parliament rather than just the whim of the PM?

Alan Pack

Kent

Read carefully

It is so easy, and so dangerous, for some to ignore the first word in the phrase “parliamentary democracy”.

John Northover

London

Troubles in construction

Ben Chu reported that the British construction industry is liable to run into a brick wall. And yet, only last week your paper quoted a representative of the building industry saying we are so short on bricks that we are having to import them.

G Forward

Stirling

The Battle of the Somme was anything but futile

Grieving for the Western Front losses of 1914-18 is right and proper. But forever lamenting the Battle of the Somme as “futile sacrifice” is an insult to the living and the dead who endured it, and this 2016 centenary is high time to honour what the British achieved on the Somme.

1 July 1916 wasn't merely day one of the Somme. It was day 132 of the Battle of Verdun, where our French allies were facing imminent disaster. The commitment of Haig's unprepared British Army to the Somme offensive was first and foremost an emergency relief operation to save Verdun.

In this it amply succeeded. On 11 July – only 10 days after the dreadful British first day (a hideous freak which was never repeated) – the Germans called off their Verdun offensive to avoid certain defeat on the Somme. Why is this vital British strategic victory never honoured? Futile it most certainly wasn't.

By the end of the Somme battle, “The Army had been fought to a standstill and was utterly worn out”. That was Ludendorff, describing what the British Somme offensive had done to the German Army. In April 1917, the Germans retreated nearly 50 miles to the fixed defences of the Hindenburg Line, frantically prepared during the winter of 1916-17 to save the Germans from more 'Somme fighting'. Futile?

That withdrawal was the true measure of what the men of the British Army achieved on the Somme. Let's stop insulting their memory by calling it futile.

Richard Humble

Exeter