Gina Miller was of course wrong to get the supreme court involved in Brexit politics (Editorial, 9 February). She should have known that, after the referendum, the people not parliament are sovereign, because parliament’s record of berating voters for making democratic choices that it finds “abhorrent” to implement goes back a long way.
In the 1964 general election, Peter Griffiths, a Conservative, defeated his Labour opponent in Smethwick in the West Midlands by placing the issue of immigration at the centre of his campaign. Though Griffiths represented the collective will of his constituents on immigration, race and culture, the British parliament of the day would have none of it. He was constantly rebuked for his election victory. Harold Wilson, the then prime minister, even called him a “parliamentary leper”.
The British elite then, as it does now, preferred to believe that only parliament, not the people, had the right to make decisions on sensitive issues such as immigration. By passing the notification of withdrawal bill, MPs have at last admitted that it is the people, not parliament, who are sovereign.
Randhir Singh Bains
Gants Hill, Essex
• I applaud your editorial on MPs failing in their duties. However, I cannot agree with your verdict on the voting conduct of MPs that “it is not they as individuals who have been found wanting. It is parliament”. All MPs are individuals. They were elected to act in the best interests of their constituents and of the country. Most chose to vote against their better judgment and to support a move that they are convinced will do their constituents and the country harm. For this they all deserve either to be deselected or to lose their seats at the next election.
Nick Chadwick
Oxford
• Wes Streeting suggests that parliament voting against leaving the EU would have caused a constitutional crisis (We can’t stop Brexit now, 9 February). I would have thought that if a majority of MPs have blatantly voted for something they believe to be wrong, we already have one.
Geoff Reid
Bradford
• The job of the opposition is to oppose policies they consider to be harmful to the UK’s future proposed by the elected government. There is no clearer example than triggering article 50 without amendments. If there’s a constitutional crisis at present, it’s due to the opposition party not fulfilling its proper function. A worthy opposition doesn’t stop opposing after a general election, in which the majority voted for different policies to the losing party.
Tim Pollard
Purley, Surrey
• Lord Hain said on Wednesday that, if necessary, he would vote against the government’s plans to trigger article 50. He added that 48% of the people should not be ignored. Yet back in 1997, he was happy to not care tuppence about the 49.7% like me who had voted against Welsh devolution. No “magnanimity in victory”, whatsoever. I can still see Hain, on the balcony of Cardiff city hall, grinning like the Cheshire Cat, the day after that incredibly close final vote count.
The 48% would have been incandescent with rage if they had lost by a tiny “point six of one per cent”. They should grow up and learn to accept defeat with a bit of class.
Dai Woosnam
Grimsby, Lincolnshire
• Thank you for the list of Labour rebels, and one Tory (9 February). For the most part these MPs would claim they rebelled to reflect the views of their constituents who had voted to remain, so it would be helpful to have the matching list of Tory MPs who backed the Brexit bill, despite their constituents having voted to remain.
Les Bright
Exeter, Devon
• Conservative MP John Baron enthused in the House of Commons on Wednesday over the significant fall in the value of the pound since the Brexit vote “leading to a field day for exporters”. Has he no concern for his constituents and the country as a whole, who will be paying more for petrol and diesel fuel, gas and electricity, food and clothing, to say nothing of greatly increased costs for foreign holidays? All this will cause rising inflation, with a consequent fall in the value of take-home pay as a result of pay freezes and other austerity measures. Is this what he means by taking back control? It sounds more like a recipe for social unrest at the very least.
Dr James Walsh
Rustington, West Sussex
• There is absolutely no need for remainers to cave in to the Brexit vote, especially if it leads to the anticipated hard Brexit (Remainers accept the inevitable, 8 February). This vote is not “the will of the people” for many reasons. The will of so many who voted Brexit was for the government to pay attention to the neglected north of England and to Wales and the other areas of the “left behinds”. The will of so many is for doctors and nurses to be trained, houses to be built, the NHS to be funded properly and for employers not to exploit cheap labour. It was not for many more years of austerity, made worse by the expense of Brexit and the damage that will inevitably be done to the prosperity of this country. Stand up to it, remainers. Keep communicating with your MPs. Keep airing your concerns.
Janet Davies
Hook, Hampshire
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
