Theresa May’s speech was essentially a free holiday to Florence

I cannot see why Theresa May elected to speak in Florence other than to fulfil a vanity project.

I'm only surprised she didn't compare herself to Dante.

Just how much did this jaunt cost?

There is no reason why the speech could not have been delivered in London: especially since we learned so little that was new.

Still, Tuscany is very inviting at this time if the year.

Dr Anthony Ingleton
Sheffield

I was in Florence and saw the PM's speech live. I have to ask why Theresa May felt it necessary to fly to Italy with a group of handpicked mostly British journalists. Apart from TV coverage of a few British demonstrators in the square fronting the Santa Maria Novella Church and two cars entering through the arch on the other side, the speech could have been given in Pyongyang since all we saw was her standing before a blank screen.

Surely it would have been more useful to have invited the press from Europe to London to explain how she wishes to deal with Brexit. It was the UK's decision to leave the EU but the PM's speech sounded as if the EU was planning to leave the UK. She must understand it is not for the UK to dictate its terms to the EU, which is the impression I had, but the other way round.

Peter Fieldman
Florence

Leading Brexiteers need to admit their mistake

You report that a majority now back remain raises the question of why has it taken more than a year for such a slight percentage movement in opinion. Perhaps because, despite all the evidence of the true complexity of Brexit, armies of voters won't easily admit, " we were misled: we were wrong". Confirmatory bias is slow to be displaced by buyer’s remorse.

What might galvanise a sufficient turn in public sentiment to compel a second referendum is if one or more of the leading "out" advocates publicly recanted. The chance of this is slim, but it could gild rather than blight a political career.

Steven Fogel
London

London needs a new approach to taxi travel

I am surprised at the Independent’s editorial in support of Uber. Those who support Uber are most probably attracted by low fares and a fleet of new vehicles. What they are actually supporting is a business model that relies on an ill-paid labour force, a sizeable subsidy by investors to try and build a dominant market position and a corporate ethos that works only for the investor.

There can be no natural monopoly in taxi services so the Uber business model is fatally flawed. London needs a transition from expensive, tailored, polluting cabs driven by drivers who have invested in learning the knowledge to an efficient non-polluting fleet driven by professional drivers. It must be fair to black cab drivers and the influx of new drivers. Uber was not the answer, though its software in the hands of a co-operative may be the answer.

Jon Hawksley
London

Black cab travel is the best option

Uber drivers: untrained with poor knowledge of London, do not look you in the eye, often have inadequate knowledge of English and no use of "please" and "thank you". That is my experience. I would always choose an old fashioned London cabby any time.

Joy Nisbet
Church Stretton

A more appropriate venue for May’s speech was available

Why not Venice for May's speech? It has a Bridge of Sighs!

Ian Turnbull
Carlisle