Yet again we have a politician citing “the will of the people” as a justification for pursuing a Brexit deal however unsatisfactory it might be (Labour made a promise on Brexit, so let’s get a deal done, 6 February). Only this is not a Tory Brexiter but a Labour MP, Caroline Flint. She says: “I promised my voters that I would accept the referendum; I promised to work for the best deal for jobs for Doncaster, and pledged to oppose a second referendum.”
We have a representative democracy; MPs are not mandated by their constituents to pursue a particular course, but to consider what is in their best interests. What if the best deal for jobs in Doncaster is achieved by remaining in the EU? What if, as is becoming clear, the 2016 referendum was corrupted, not just by the deliberate deceptions told by the leave campaign but by millions of pounds from shady sources? What if a second referendum asked voters specifically to choose between the deal Mrs May eventually comes up with, and remaining in the EU, a different question to the in/out choice of 2016?
It beggars belief that some Labour MPs are so rigid that they cannot respond to the changing political situation but rather like Mrs May insist that we must leave the EU whatever the cost. The “will of the people” would become a lot clearer if they were consulted again. Ms Flint may even find that the majority of her Doncaster constituents no longer want to leave the EU now that they know what it would actually entail.
John Marzillier
Oxford
• My frustration at Labour’s incoherent and spineless policy on Brexit was raised to new heights by Caroline Flint. Why should the result of the 2016 referendum be held as a shibboleth of democracy when the broader constituency of left-leaning voters who think Brexit a calamity are denied any meaningful advocacy in parliament and are not being served by the official opposition? Does Ms Flint genuinely believe her constituents will be better off as a result of us leaving the EU – in employment rights, for instance, or in environmental or consumer protection? If she doesn’t, why is she peddling the fatuous party line?
As a former Labour party member I am dismayed that a second referendum is not being advocated by the party. I imagine there may be many others like me who will struggle to give the party any form of support unless it does so.
David Goudge
London
• Caroline Flint is another of those MPs who still doesn’t get it. The anti-EU vote was a symptom, not the cause. The cause was the failure of government in the UK, particularly in England, to deliver on their promises and to cause misery for the majority through austerity. The three governing parties of 1997-2015 were the authors of the Thatcherite policies that led to the 2008 crash and its aftermath. The EU was used as the whipping boy – as the far right is doing elsewhere in Europe.
I hope she and other MPs have read Schams El Ghoneimi issue (The EU is under attack from the far right. Here’s how I learned to defend it, 6 February) and weep at their own non-engagement with their own people – and stop saying that the vote to leave the EU is just “the will of the people”.
Ted Pawley
Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire
• Schams El Ghoneimi says “bridging the gap between EU institutions and citizens requires better work at grassroots level” and among his suggestions says citizens of the EU should call their MEP. One of the serious weaknesses of our European democracy is the size of the European constituencies and the way the representatives fail to relate to their constituents. At least we know who our MPs are, even if we seldom see or hear from them in their Westminster bubble or other employment. And we can watch their performance and on the BBC Parliament channel if we have the stamina.
May I suggest that a Guardian poll asking readers to name their MEP might lead to further questions about the shortcomings and consequences of our so-called European democracy. With better grassroots information, Brexit might never have happened.
Tommy Gee
Wingfield, Suffolk
• Tony Blair identifies a national mood composed of boredom and alarm in the current Brexit impasse (A ‘blind Brexit’ won’t give the nation closure, 5 February), but he must bear a share of the blame for the climate of incomprehension and impotence among the general public. In 2005 Britain was due to hold a referendum on the proposed European constitution drafted over many months by delegates of all member states. France voted first and rejected the project, whereupon the Blair government cancelled our referendum. How much better it would have been if he had gone ahead with it. There was nothing to lose, and it would have opened up the whole question of the EU and our relationship with it to debate. Instead, the message was essentially that the French had voted on our behalf so we need not bother our heads with such things. Now he laments that the man and woman in the street are at a loss in the present muddle and just want it all to be over. Of course this is a great pity, but engagement in complex issues cannot be called up at a moment’s notice. Tony Blair had his opportunity and missed it.
Roger Woodhouse
Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands
• Labour’s problem isn’t that it is pro- or anti-Brexit (Labour under pressure: EU position losing votes, 7 February). It is the assumption that decisions on Brexit should be governed not by their impact on the British people but on Labour’s electoral chances.
Julian Le Vay
Oxford
• No need to invent a new place in hell (Tusk: special place in hell for those who backed Brexit without a plan, 7 February): it’s already there in Dante’s Inferno, the circle of the fraudulent counsellors, exemplified by Ulysses, Virgil’s “dissembling speaker”, who was enveloped in a constantly burning flame. Dante has Ulysses persuade his crew to sail out beyond the known limits of the world and, after a brief transition period, a whirlwind tipped their boat stern over prow, and the sea closed over them.
Trevor Dean
London
• There is a special place in heaven reserved for public servants who speak the truth and point out that the emperor has no clothes.
Alice Appleton
Leeds
• My friend and I have done our best (Could ‘granny protests’ bring down Brexit?, G2, 7 February). We took part in the march in London in October with our placard “Grandmas against Brexit”, inspired by the ladies I had encountered in Berlin and their Omas gegen Rechts placards. Wearing sashes bearing the same message, we were photographed innumerable times and even interviewed by a French radio station. We took part in a further march in York in November and received a similar warm welcome, except from an ardent female leaver who called us traitors . We were doing it for our grandchildren, for whose future outside the EU we fear.
Alison Harris
Harrogate, North Yorkshire
• In September 2017, four of us joined the People’s March for Europe with our banner Grannies4EU. Many grandmas asked to pose with the banner and numerous young people took approving photos. We were very disappointed that no British newspaper picked up our banner but, lo and behold, the French newspaper Libération did with a full article on our fervent desire to remain in Europe for the sake of future generations.
Pauline Shelley
Barnet, London
• 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
.png?w=600)
