Theresa May’s bullying approach to Brexit plays fast and loose with Britain’s future

sir – Theresa May is attempting to hold a gun to the head of Parliament, and the country, by forcing MPS to decide between her sell-out deal and the supposed chaos of a no-deal Brexit.

However, any disruption or chaos, real or exaggerated, will be largely of her own making, due to her failure to properly prepare for a no-deal outcome. It is outrageous that she has taken this risk. She must be replaced. Ed Cowley

Farnham, Surrey

sir – The Prime Minister has warned that a change of leadership could halt Brexit.

As a Leaver who looks forward to a bright future for Britain once it has left the EU, I still think this would be better than the national humiliation that Mrs May is offering. Martin Wright

London W12 sir – Is no PM better than a bad PM? Ian L King Goring-on-thames, Oxfordshire

sir – I was disgusted by the behaviour of many MPS last Thursday.

The Prime Minister, who has worked day and night to get a deal of some sort with the EU, was subjected to a barrage of abuse, and was the only person who behaved with decency.

I voted to leave the EU. I still want to leave the EU. But I am a realist. I do not like this draft deal, but it is probably the best we can get. Some people feel we are damaging their future and are angry with us. Others are very happy with the EU. And some EU leaders, who also have a vote on it, think we have been given too much.

There are those who complain that this deal does not give us any say in future EU laws that we would be obliged to implement. Realistically, we have had little influence since we signed the Lisbon Treaty in 2007 and agreed to qualified majority voting. We count for little in the eyes of the EU majority.

When MPS have finished their grandstanding, perhaps they would spare a thought for the thousands of people in their constituencies whose livelihoods are at stake. They, too, will have a vote of confidence at the next election. Gillian Lurie

Westgate-on-sea, Kent

sir – As a former lawyer with some experience of negotiation, who voted Remain simply because I believe people are better together, I have been following the current situation with interest.

May I suggest that, instead of ousting the Prime Minister, the better tactic would be to allow her to put the proposal to Parliament?

If, as would appear likely, the proposed terms are rejected, she can then go back to the EU with the strength of a vote in Parliament – not just one political party – behind her, and demand better terms. Grahame Whittlesea

Canterbury, Kent

sir – Juliet Samuel (Comment, November 17) misses the key point: the gaps in the Withdrawal Agreement do not mitigate the risks but exacerbate them.

The EU has insisted on the backstop, which will put Britain into the so-called temporary customs territory, from which it cannot escape without the EU’S consent.

The gaps enable the EU to impose on Britain whatever terms it chooses: free movement of people, huge payments, compliance with whatever terms it might invent to further its interests at the expense of Britain.

The EU’S objective is to control its unfettered access to Britain’s market, worth £250 billion, and to prevent Britain from competing with the EU, even in its home market. From the British side, the sole purpose of this agreement is to protect our access to the EU market, worth only £150 billion – and we will pay £39 billion for the privilege. Where is the sense in that?

We can all see how the EU has treated Britain during these negotiations. How can anyone believe that future negotiations will be different, unless we have already left and adopted World Trade Organisation rules instead? More than 90 per cent of world trade is on WTO terms, and that is where Britain’s future prosperity lies. Roger Kendrick

Farnham Common, Buckinghamshire

sir – A principal difference between so-called “international law” and states’ domestic laws is that, in the absence of the parties’ consent, international agreements are really only enforceable by punitive sanctions or armed might.

An international treaty may not contain a clause permitting one of its parties to escape from it, but sovereign states are by definition able to do just that. There is thus force in the point made by Juliet Samuel (Comment, November 17) that a United Kingdom bound to an endless “backstop” by the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement could eventually, if Parliament so wished, simply walk away from it. I don’t imagine there would be an EU invasion force mobilised. Jolyon Grey

Cheltenham, Gloucestershire