PLEASE keep your letters to 250 words maximum giving your name, address and daytime telephone number - even on emails. Email: letters@swindonadvertiser.co.uk. Write: Swindon Advertiser, Unit 1 and 2 Richmond House, Edison Park, Swindon, SN3 3RB. Phone: 01793 501806.

Anonymity is granted only at the discretion of the editor, who also reserves the right to edit letters.

Brexiters do not speak for the whole country

The recent spate of letters from Brexiters demonstrates a profound ignorance of the principles of a representative democracy.

Members of Parliament are not delegates mandated to follow blindly what constituents say they want. They are elected to take part in decision-taking and in law-making in what they consider to be the national interest.

There are examples on both sides of the Brexit debate where MPs are taking different actions from those wished by a majority of their constituents as shown in the 2016 referendum. Remember that if MPs were functioning merely as delegates then we would still have capital punishment.

Brexiters and their supporters talk about not delivering Brexit as being an affront to democracy. This claim is both wrong and insulting.

They do not speak for the majority of the electorate that did not vote to leave the EU in the referendum (the referendum resulted in only 37 per cent of the electorate voting Leave after, to put it mildly, a mendacious and dubious campaign).

Claiming that leave is the ‘people’s choice’ ignores the fact that two of the constituent parts of the UK – Scotland and Northern Ireland – voted remain so that Brexit threatens the unity of the United Kingdom.

It is also worth remembering that the referendum was only advisory, even though both main political parties said that they would honour the vote.

So let’s have less of the spurious claims that Brexiters are the true patriots and have a monopoly on speaking for the country.

We should all be putting the national interest first, based on the best evidence available.

Tony Mayer, Wheatlands, Haydon Wick

Changing retirement goalposts an injustice

You can jump out of the back of a lorry or a dinghy on our numerous shores with no passport or papers having made not one penny of financial contribution to this country. The human rights law will make sure we look after you – house you, feed you and give you legal aid at British taxpayers’ expense.

But not if you are a woman who has been born here, worked hard and paid your taxes and brought up a family.

Shortly before some were about to look forward to a hard-earned retirement, they were informed: ‘sorry dear, we have moved the goalposts, you will have to wait another five years – not gradually increased over a decent period of time as is normal practice’.

The High Court has rejected the appeal which had a direct effect on 3.5 million women against this clear injustice.

What about their human rights, that they were promised a retirement pension at 60, not 65?

Will the liberal elite brigade and chattering classes pay as much attention regarding legal action and protests in Parliament to this ruling as they have to the Brexit referendum?

Will the show business bleeding hearts and TV stars protest on this issue as much as they did on taking in so called asylum seekers?

Will the eco warriors block the streets and glue themselves to the rails in protest at this judgement?

Surely upholding the financial rights of British women of 60 and over should be foremost regarding justice and fair play.

Bill Williams, Merlin Way, Covingham

Letters to the Editor: What do you think?

Do you have an opinion on our reader letters? Get in touch.

Add your contribution now By uploading a contribution, for use online and in print, you accept our contributor terms. You will either own or have permission to use anything you provide.