By focusing on the economic risks of Brexit, campaigners are losing sight of higher values

SIR – An impressive list of academics from the University of Cambridge write in favour of remaining in the European Union (Letters, May 31).

Their major concern is funding. It’s true that Cambridge may eventually lose about a quarter of its research funding in the event of Brexit. To suggest that this can’t be made up from other sources (including from our government, once funds from Brussels are returned) shows a distinct lack of imagination. With relief from the bureaucratic process of EU grant application, there should be time enough to pursue other possibilities.

We believe instead there are higher values to take into account: freedom, democracy, accountability and legitimacy of government. It’s a little disappointing to see those at one of our foremost universities focusing only on the utilitarian. Professor James Tooley Dr Barrie Craven

School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences Newcastle upon Tyne SIR – My 536 colleagues at Cambridge protest too much.

European Research Framework Programmes have been open to many countries outside the EU for a good many years. In recognition of the high quality of their research, Israel, Norway and Switzerland have long participated in EU research projects. The Eureka scheme, dedicated to industrial innovation, includes South Korea and Canada. David Abulafia Professor of Mediterranean History Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge

SIR – If we vote to leave the EU, British pensioners living in Europe may find their pensions frozen and not uprated in line with inflation. There are already half a million pensioners in Commonwealth countries who are forced to live with this inequality, and there are no guarantees in place to protect pensioners in the EU from the same fate.

We are in serious danger of creating a generation of pensioners who, faced with the impracticality of negotiating bilateral agreements with 27 EU countries, will be forced through hardship and poverty to leave their lives abroad and come home. Roger Gale MP (Con) Chairman, All-Party Parliamentary Group on Frozen Pensions Bourne End, Buckinghamshire

SIR – Many people appear to be ready to vote to remain in the EU because it is the “safe” option.

This suggests that the Leave campaign has not done enough to inform voters that there is no status quo. If the euro is to survive, the eurozone countries must move to fiscal and political union.

Measures to achieve this could include budgetary restrictions and taxraising measures, which could make life very uncomfortable for Britain in future. W R McGill Abinger Common, Surrey

SIR – The Remain side in the EU debate quotes economists and financial organisations on the economic risks of leaving, while the Leave side focuses on the future impact of migration.

Having to choose between these two issues is a zero-sum game, with multiple factors likely either to aggravate or soften the blow of leaving (or, for that matter, remaining).

What started as a plebiscite to appease the internal wrangling of the Conservatives has become something all societies should strive to avoid: partisan, noisy division. Let’s just hope it doesn’t become entrenched. Professor Duncan French University of Lincoln

SIR – William Hague (Comment, May 31) urges both sides to accept the referendum result.

But how will that result be decided in the event of a tie? What majority – and how many recounts – will be needed for a “final” decision that both sides will respect? Jeremy Thomas Crowle, Worcestershire