As MPS face a choice between no deal and no Brexit, they should heed their constituents

SIR – I don’t care what sort of soft Brexit MPS prefer in their indicative votes. Our constitution needs to catch up with the impact of a referendum on the role of MPS.

The 1774 view that MPS should use their own judgment on behalf of their constituents is suspended when they ask the electorate to take a decision for them in a referendum. In this case they should do whatever the electorate instructs, whether they like it or not.

Brexit always was a binary choice: we either get back control of our laws, money, borders and trade, or we do not. The Withdrawal Agreement does not get back control, so the true choice for MPS is between no deal and no Brexit. The constituents of any MPS who vote for no Brexit will express their view at the next general election. Richard Tweed

Croydon, Surrey

SIR – There is a certain irony in the fact that the vote to “give back control to Parliament” on Monday was won, like the referendum, by a margin of approximately 4 per cent. However, since this result favours those who wish to overturn the referendum result, no doubt it will be accepted without question. Steven W Gooda

Tellig, Rhineland-palatinate, Germany

SIR – Questions that MPS could usefully consider as part of indicative voting are: “Would the Prime Minister’s withdrawal plan be acceptable a) if the so-called backstop were removed or b) if the backstop were legally time limited?”

I suspect that the answer would be a resounding “Yes”, which would allow Britain to give the EU a choice: remove the backstop or face a no-deal Brexit. Peter Sykes

Stockport, Cheshire

SIR – There is a misconception that this is Theresa May’s deal. It is not; it is the EU’S deal, which it has grudgingly given to Mrs May. Its insistence on not moving one iota has led to the current impasse. As everyone now believes that the deal is not supported, there is only one choice left. To quote Mrs May: no deal is better than a bad deal. Richard Sanders

Loughborough, Leicestershire

SIR – Let’s have an extension of 15 months, an immediate change of prime minister, a negotiation of the comprehensive free-trade agreement that most Leavers thought they were voting for in the referendum – and, if Parliament does not support the outcome, a general election. John Sharp

Great Glen, Leicestershire

SIR – Charles Moore’s analysis of the Brexit shambles (Comment, March 23) is accurate. Parliament is certainly filled with both fatheads and “phatheads”.

He criticises Mrs May’s stubborn determination to stick with her deal and recommends no deal instead. Unfortunately, that is pure wishful thinking. No deal won’t happen because neither MPS nor the EU will allow it. Mr Moore does not face the reality of the situation.

The current deal is the least bad option. Everything else is even weaker. Mr Moore is like a man who wins second prize in a raffle but refuses to claim it because he hasn’t won first prize. Most Brexit supporters are rather more realistic: they will accept second best. They can see the other prizes on offer (such as a second referendum) and know that they are certainly not worth taking. A G Whitehead

St Leonards-on-sea, East Sussex

SIR – Not only do we have no captain (Letter, March 26); I am not sure we even have a ship. Helen Wynne-griffith

London W8

SIR – If the Brexit process were a film, would its classification be comedy, tragedy, disaster, mystery, horror or farce – or a mixture of them all? Judith Barbara

St Ives, Cambridgeshire