When one of the government’s principal legal officers said, “We’re in a major constitutional crisis” – with a degree of surprise and urgency – any residual belief that any of the present cabinet knows what they are doing rapidly drained away (Brexit chaos as Speaker stops May in her tracks, 19 March). It seems that even when sitting on the green benches the content and thrust of debate, discussion and questions goes over the heads of too many of those paid to participate. Last week more than one curious MP asked the question with which anyone who belongs to a club, society or political party should be familiar, that governance is not on a continuous loop, like “muzak” in lifts. If the Speaker’s ruling leads to a lengthy extension to article 50, requiring elections to the European parliament, the £100m price tag looks exceptionally good value when measured against ferry contracts and other no-deal planning.
Les Bright
Exeter, Devon
• Speaker Bercow has made the proper, logical ruling when faced with an attempt by a minority to get the same people voting in the same chamber to overturn a decision they have already made.
Organisations don’t accept a minority in any other group of decision-makers repeatedly resubmitting a motion in the hope of getting a different result.
The 1604 ruling has since been applied in parliaments again and again, because of its logic. Speaker Bercow is right to uphold the sound precedent.
Ken Coghill
Former Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Parliament of Victoria, 1988-92; adjunct professor, Swinburne University
• Brexit is now a bigger failure of statecraft than Suez. Nothing in recent times comes even remotely close to the fiasco, which now resembles checkmate in reverse, with no way out.
We have reached a point where some external intervention is required. All systems as we know them have collapsed, and pretending otherwise is futile.
Perhaps the time has come for parliament to be entirely dissolved, at least temporarily, and a new plan drawn up to re-establish normality. The Queen still exercises that final prerogative.
Mike Galvin
Winchcombe, Gloucestershire
• Your editorial (19 March) suggests that “Mrs May could prorogue parliament to get her way”, which would be ironic since in June 2017 she extended the parliamentary session to two years to deal with Brexit and “enable the smoothest possible transition at the point of leaving” – ie to get her own way.
Derrick Cameron
Stoke-on-Trent
• Theresa May could try to prorogue parliament, but the Queen would need to go along with it. This would arguably mean she was involving herself in politics. So of course might be the case if she declined to do this. Possibly her decision might be affected by the precedent of parliament being prorogued in the middle of a session in 1628, by Charles I. In view of subsequent events, ultimately leading to Charles having his head cut off, Her Majesty may hesitate to follow suit.
Kevin McGrath
Harlow, Essex
• Polly Toynbee points out that every poll for a year has put remain way ahead (Bercow’s ruling has breathed new life into the people’s vote, 19 March). So why do Tory politicians, frustrated by Speaker Bercow and Erskine May, fulminate about “failing to deliver the people’s decision”? Surely that’s just what Monday’s blast of fresh air through the frowsy Commons encourages parliament to now do.
Frank Paice
Norwich
• Mr Bercow is right “to seize back sovereignty for the Commons”, in the words of Polly Toynbee, so why propose immediately taking it away from the Commons by holding another referendum? It is the responsibility of the newly re-empowered parliament to put a stop to Brexit by revoking the article 50 notification.
The only constitutional crisis in sight is the possibility of the government trying to limit parliament’s powers. Downgrading the centuries-old British parliament would be a strange interpretation of “taking back control”.
John Hall
Bristol
• So leave MPs are outraged that they are not being given a third opportunity to vote on the May deal, yet scoff contemptuously at the idea that the public should be given a mere second chance to vote. “The people have spoken” they say. Well, parliament has spoken – twice.
Mary Smith
Bearsted, Kent
• Now that the Speaker has ruled out a third vote, shouldn’t it go to penalties?
Philip Maini
Oxford
• Could somebody please, please ask Armando Iannucci to stop scripting Brexit (or at least write in a happy ending).
Alex Lawson
Nottingham
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition
