The prorogation protests were just another attack on the democratic vote to leave the EU

sir – The demonstrations over the weekend against the prorogation of Parliament – which is standard procedure at the end of a parliamentary session – were clearly just an excuse to demonstrate against leaving the EU.

On June 23 2016, 17.4 million people made the effort to get to their local polling stations in order to give the thumbs-down to the undemocratic EU. No amount of Momentumor-chestrated anti-brexit activity can change that. Gerald Heath

Corsham, Wiltshire

sir – I find it odd that those out on the streets at the weekend, allegedly in defence of democracy, should feel such a strong sense of loyalty to an organisation run by a secretive cabal of unelected officials. Sue Pickard

Epsom Downs, Surrey

sir – I was greatly amused by some of the slogans I saw at the protests. My personal favourite was “Save Democracy: Stop Brexit”. Sam Jefferis

Keynsham, Somerset

sir – The Archbishop of Canterbury’s call for Remainers to accept the result of the referendum in the interests of democracy is admirable.

Theresa May’s time in office showed that reconciliation cannot be achieved with a half-in, half-out solution. That approach has only led to greater discord. Remainers must not only accept the referendum result; for their own well-being, as much as that of the nation, they must unite behind it and embrace the opportunities. Henry Speer

Lincoln

sir – Ross Clark (Comment, August 29) is right to fear that Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament could be a mistake. It may be legal and constitutional, but is it wise? Without it, the opposition parties could be relied on to oppose the Government but would not agree on anything else.

Mr Johnson could have kept the moral high ground and still won on Brexit. Now he has given ammunition to the real enemies of democracy – the opponents of Brexit masquerading as opponents of no-deal. John de Waal

Eastbourne, East Sussex

sir – Can it be right that a prime minister’s advice to the Queen can be challenged in court but unilateral changes to our constitutional arrangements by a partisan Speaker cannot?

His Honour Charles Wide QC Peterborough, Cambridgeshire

sir – Hugo Vickers’s understanding of our constitution (Comment, August 30) is in error. He takes Walter Bagehot’s line to an extreme to make a very dangerous point, namely that the monarch must always accept the advice of her ministers.

This must be corrected. The Queen is bound to uphold the rule of law. She has sworn on oath to do this to the “best of her powers”. Written bits of our constitution, such as the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, aim to control the Crown in its governance.

The Queen must uphold these while they remain unrepealed. They secure the right of the people to make their own laws and customs. In order to sit in Parliament, all MPS have sworn oaths of allegiance and agreed to abide by the rule of law. So long as they do so, the Queen will indeed accept the advice of her ministers – but, should they propose to disregard the rule of law, she is bound by the law to refuse.

This is the true status of our constitution, and thus it places limitations on the power of our Parliament so that it may not destroy its own omnipotence and betray the people to a foreign potentate. The Speaker’s stance should be tested against these principles.

John Bingley Lord James of Blackheath Rear Admiral Roger Lane-nott Freddie Forsyth