Jonathan Steele is right to dismiss the assumption that the referendum result is beyond question (The leave vote isn’t sacrosanct. There are ways to reverse it, 24 January). The time between the referendum and the UK leaving the EU will be comparable to the normal length of a parliament, and we do not assume that the vote in one election binds us in the next one.
In virtually every other human transaction second thoughts are allowed for. Even when we make seemingly irreversible marriage vows they can be set aside. In a decision more analogous to Brexit, divorce, we insist on a decree nisi to allow for second thoughts before a decree absolute.
When we buy something in most circumstances we have the right to take it back if we decide it doesn’t satisfy us, or come up to expectations.
Why shouldn’t we have the same right when it comes to a decision about our national future which will deprive us of many rights we have as European citizens?
Kevin McGrath
Harlow, Essex
• I was heartened by Jonathan Steele’s article. The most prominent Brexit proponents are so strident in advocating immediate action exactly because they know that delay will allow people to come to their senses. We in Ireland are more than experienced in referendums and invariably hold a second one after the people have had their chance to kick the government. This is perfectly democratic. The British way will more likely be along the lines advocated by Mr Steele.
Noel Conlon
Bailieborough, Co Cavan, Ireland
• Why are pro-remain MPs so scared of opposing the triggering of article 50? By the time of the next election it is more likely than not that the deleterious effects of Brexit, such as significant job losses, will have made themselves felt. MPs who stood up against Brexit will have won great respect from their constituents.
Alan Pavelin
Chislehurst, Kent
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
