Taking back control by stifling democracy

I MUST respond to Roger Harrold’s letter relating to the irony of Brexit and the suspension of democracy (“These ladies and gents are for turning,” Mailbox, September 2).

The strongest and perhaps only valid argument for Brexit is the restoration of sovereignty to our Parliament, yet many Brexiteers support the extended prorogation of Parliament at this vital time.

That is the ultimate irony and demonstrates a lack of awareness of our system.

The issue is that Parliament should be allowed to scrutinise our method and version of Brexit.

Mr Harrold claims that all of the anti-democratic activity in Parliament has come from anti-Brexit MPs, but the prorogation has come from Brexit supporters to prevent democratic scrutiny.

Members of Parliament are elected to use their judgment on a range of issues, to act in the best interests of their constituents and the nation.

They are not seeking to block the result of the referendum but to ensure the best outcome for their constituents in implementing it.

Proroguing Parliament denies them this democratic ability.

I do not believe a second referendum is the way forward, but allowing our representative parliamentary democracy to work is.

With regard to democracy requiring “loser consent”, this is a polarising and belligerent statement as democracy is about acting for the benefit of all, not just one side.

In the context of a no-deal Brexit outcome, it has been shown and quantified that many of the poor will lose out.

What consent did they give to be deprived of their livelihoods?

Brian Coleman, Enderby