The views on Brexit expressed in the Observer (News, last week) are welcome and may remind MPs that ours is a parliamentary democracy, and they are in no way bound by the outcome of the referendum.
Parliament saw off the pretensions of divinely anointed monarchs long ago and should not be afraid of doing the same with an ill-informed mass vote if they wish to preserve our form of democracy, in which the views of voters are tempered by elected representatives. The effusions of the prime minister about “thwarting the will of the people” remind me of Europe’s pre-war dictators.
It will not be enough for parliament to vote on the withdrawal procedure or dream of another vote when that procedure has reached its inexorable end. MPs should rediscover their backbone and refuse to endorse the repeal bill. If they fail to do that they will have no further influence as events unfold.
Barry Rydz
Corsham, Wiltshire
Given all Remain’s advantages – choice of polling day; production of a pro-Europe leaflet paid for by taxpayers; extension of the electoral registration deadline; and the designation of Vote Leave rather than Leave.EU as leaders of the Leave campaign – I’m surprised Leave could still win by four percentage points and over a million votes.
Jeremy Hayes
Snodland, Kent
Leavers are pretending to take the vote perfectly literally, but the ballot question said nothing about freedom of movement. We do not know if there is a majority in the country against it and we do know that many value the input of EU immigrants to the country. Presumably, at least a few Leave voters were simply in favour of more free trade with the wider world, and some simply taken by the call to reclaim sovereignty.
Given the margin of 52% to 48%, it would only take just over one per cent of the voters to fall into each category for there to be a narrow majority in favour of Leaving, but without a majority for refusing freedom of movement. And narrow majorities are all we are relying on. In that case, Theresa May’s government is going beyond its mandate in assuming that soft Brexit must be off the agenda. And MPs would be within their rights to demand soft Brexit, failing any other referendum explicitly dealing with immigration (perish the thought!).
Nigel Blake
Byfleet, Surrey
Years of Tory underspending have brought about shortages in hospital beds, affordable housing and school places – the very things for which many Brexiters blame immigrants. Mrs May’s “near-invisible” support for Remain (Andrew Rawnsley, Comment, last week) prompted hardly a murmur compared with the clamour against Corbyn, but positioned her well to assume a Brexiter-in-chief role. In which, by championing immigration control rather than the single market, she has highlighted the humanity and economic sense in Corbyn’s policy.
The CBI may not ally itself with Corbyn, but did say: “Labour can be reassured that they do have a significant joint agenda with businesses of all sizes, which stand ready to ensure that the opposition’s ideas deliver sustainable prosperity across the UK, and avoid the threat of an era of regressive industrial strategy.”
Further, because views on Brexit and Trump resonate, in that some attracted initially are starting to reconsider, Mrs May may have nailed her colours to the mast too early. So, while reneging on a leadership bid commitment to consolidate her own position and maintain party unity may prove to Brexiters “that she is serious”, it is also a blow against Britain’s economic interests, which business may be slow to forget.
David Murray
Wallington, Surrey
