A vote on the Brexit deal would satisfy nobody

SIR – Ian Noble’s suggestion (Letters, March 11) that we should have a three-way vote on the Brexit deal – the most important economic and constitutional issue of our times – is muddle-headed.

Such a vote could result in the favoured option being supported by as few as 34 per cent of voters (or even fewer when turnout is taken into account). If the outcome was that Britain rejected the deal negotiated and left anyway – one of the options proposed by Mr Noble – would he be content? As he is already dismissive of the 52 per cent who voted for Brexit, this seems unlikely.

We have had a democratic vote on a clear proposition. Anti-democratic Remoaners need to stop burdening us with their daft ideas. John Norrington

Digby, Lincolnshire

SIR – Mr Noble accuses “hardline Brexiteers” of “breathtaking arrogance”. The arrogant ones are those attempting to overthrow the referendum result.

I agree that the people responsible for the negotiations – on both sides – are incapable of negotiating their way out of a paper bag, but that does not justify undermining the Brexit vote. Andrew Ash

Market Harborough, Leicestershire

SIR – John Rieley (Letters, March 11) wonders what would happen if Britain held a second referendum and voted to remain but the EU didn’t want us back.

Such a scenario seems highly unlikely: the EU needs our money. However, if we went back, there would probably not be any further rebates, and European integration would be pursued with renewed vigour. Jerry Fulton

Draycott, Somerset

SIR – I found Mr Rieley’s letter thought-provoking.

In the event that the EU no longer wanted us, and insisted that we left, would it be prepared to pay £50 billion to get rid of us? David Lawson

Leamington Spa, Warwickshire