Far from being powerless as prime minister (“Even in power, politicians are all too often powerless”, Comment, last week), Theresa May is the one person who could save her country and her party from the catastrophe of Brexit, by rediscovering her Remain convictions and siding with her chancellor.
Why should the referendum result be set in stone when, surely, democracy means being able to change one’s mind in the light of the mounting evidence of self-harm by triggering article 50? (“Why Britain’s voters must have a second referendum on Brexit”, Comment, last week).
Article 50 was triggered before the Brexit election, which lost the government its mandate for making us all poorer and laid bare the lies of the Brexiters that we would have £350m a week for the NHS. What could be more undemocratic than the £1bn bribe to the DUP, when the majority of the electorate in Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU?
This government clings to power by stealing Ukip’s clothes, even when its policies have been totally discredited, and even when it means acting against the interests of employers and workers alike. In the absence of opposition from Labour, Mrs May is the one person with the power to avert the impending car crash of Brexit.
Margaret Phelps
Penarth
Glamorgan
Vernon Bogdanor sets out a compelling case for a second referendum, but with one flaw: he did not discuss the possibility that the other 27 EU members might want to change the terms of our membership before effectively cancelling the article 50 process. In particular, they might want to change the budget rebate.
Many people think that the 2016 referendum was totally inadequate, with a simplistic, single-question ballot producing a narrow majority (of those who voted, not the total electorate) deciding the most important political and constitutional decision of our lifetimes. To avoid another unsatisfactory result, the public would need to know the terms, not only of Brexit but also of our possible continued membership of the EU, before voting.
With just 18 months to go, there simply isn’t enough time for two consecutive negotiations and a unanimous decision by the EU27 for us to stay, even if the government was prepared to try. Sadly, the only chance of remaining in the EU will be if the House of Commons decisively rejects the Brexit agreement well before March 2019.
Andrew Bethell
Tarporley
Cheshire
We are seriously thinking of allowing our fate to be determined by a minority of 37.5%. Whereas in a parliamentary election we can look forward to voting again after a few years, the result of a referendum offers no such opportunity.
To achieve a truly democratic vote, surely more attention should be given to matters such as the minimum turnout required and the minimum required majority of the winning vote. As it is, the referendum result we have does not command respect as the “will of the people”; only the will of just over a third of them.
Jack Longhurst
Sutton Coldfield
Vernon Bogdanor quotes George Eaton arguing that to hold a another referendum would show disrespect to those who voted for Brexit. However, did not the 2016 referendum show disrespect to those 16- and 17-year-olds who were denied a vote on an issue that will arguably affect their lives more than any other age group?
Dr Richard Bewley
Glossop, Derbyshire
Vernon Bogdanor says voters must have a second referendum on Brexit. But if the result of the democratic, lawfully held referendum of 2016 is disrespected, why should anyone who does not feel so inclined respect the result of a second referendum either? The SNP approach that referendum results only count if you agree with them is a recipe for anarchy.
David Harris
London SW13
.jpg?w=600)
