MPS have allowed their own self-interest to take precedence over the wishes of the electorate
sir – If ever there was an example of the naked self-interest of MPS, then Tuesday’s Brexit vote was surely it: a terrifying display of mediocrity, unfounded ambition and deceit.
MPS showed no hint of responsibility, respect or even recognition of what the British people voted for in the 2016 referendum.
Irrespective of where anyone stands in relation to Brexit, we urgently need a new political manifesto for wholesale reform of British politics, in order to build genuinely democratic machinery of government. James Anderson
Geneva, Switzerland
sir – When I taught political studies, I used to advise that it was the very habit of governing that could, sometimes at least, help to instruct individuals and groups on how to govern well.
The truth of this axiom emerges starkly from the Brexit imbroglio. Forty years of growing subservience to European bureaucracy have not merely atrophied the skills of our native politicians – they have sapped the very will to govern. The problem is not merely a dearth of talent among today’s parliamentarians – though a glance at the front benches, on either side, is enough to fill any thoughtful observer with despondency – but a profound, craven reluctance to accept the challenges of self-government.
M St John Parker
Bampton, Oxfordshire
sir – If MPS study only history, law and politics before embarking on careers as politicians then they will too often lack the capability to achieve consensus or make decisions.
By contrast, industry and business leaders have to make important decisions accurately and speedily every day. Their expertise and experience are constantly in demand. Following the referendum, the best brains across the political spectrum should have been brought together to draw up an acceptable divorce deal that they could have put before the country before presenting it to the EU. Andrew Hayward
Epsom, Surrey
sir – The key to this sorry mess was unwittingly revealed by a No 10 spokesman on Tuesday. Speaking in the aftermath of the Withdrawal Agreement’s defeat, he announced that the Government wanted to see what would be necessary to secure the support of Parliament “consistent with what we believe to be the result of the referendum”.
The referendum result is not a question of government opinion, but a matter of fact.
Before the referendum, the then prime minister, David Cameron, promised to implement whatever the people decided. However, Mrs May, a Remainer at heart, decided to interpret the result in her own way. Her objective was a deal that would keep Leavers happy by formally leaving the EU and satisfy Remainers by keeping us tied as closely as possible to the bloc. Unfortunately, the Withdrawal Agreement has only managed to unite both Leavers and Remainers in general condemnation. Malcolm Symonds
Ashtead, Surrey
sir – The enduring relevance and topicality of Yes, Prime Minister are remarkable – and somewhat depressing, since nothing seems to have changed in the world of politics.
Yesterday morning, I opened my copy of Jonathan Lynn and Antony Jay’s book at random and read the following: “One should not open a national debate until the government has privately made up its mind.” Professor Elizabeth Archibald
Durham University sir – Theresa May was never actively elected to be leader of the Conservative Party or prime minister. Rather, she gained the position by default after Andrea Leadsom dropped out. With hindsight, it is apparent that under such circumstances there should have been an election among party members between the third-placed candidate and the candidate left standing.
Before the mistake is repeated, perhaps the Conservative Party should amend its electoral procedure to deal with such a circumstance. Andrew J Smith
West Malling, Kent
sir – Since mistakenly going to the country for a mandate in 2017, Mrs May has worked tirelessly to achieve an impossible brief with little or no support, even from her colleagues.
Yet she did strive to get the best terms for her country, rather than just jacking it all in and blaming everybody else. I admire her, and I think history will be kinder to her than we are. Tony Parrack
London SW20
sir – What a difference it would have made back in May 2015, when David Cameron won a surprise majority in the election, if he had done the sensible thing, secure in the knowledge that he had a full five years of uninterrupted government. That was his opportunity to make some tough and maybe unpopular decisions about things of national priority. He could have ruled on second runways, new airports, HS2 and other important infrastructure projects. He could have passed laws to protect our veterans. He could have used his majority for meaningful humanitarian intervention in the Middle East.
Instead, he threw away five years of certainty and called a referendum on EU membership to appease Ukip and hardliners in his own party. He put to the people a binary choice on a matter of great complexity to which there was no simple solution, and he allowed a 48/52 result to change the future of this country for ever. And then, when he saw the implications of his actions, he put his hands behind his back like Winnie-the-pooh and gently strolled into the sunset, leaving behind him chaos and discord. Pamela Gibson
Seaford, East Sussex
sir – If one thing is learnt from the rambling chaos of parliamentary debate over the past few months, it surely must be that a referendum on any national matter is an inefficient and lazy way of governing. Penelope Escombe
Kettering, Northamptonshire
sir – Brexit should have been negotiated by a cross-party group of like-minded MPS. Something as important as this should not have been left to the vagaries of party politics. Francis Eastwood
London SE9
sir – I now find myself with only one problem to resolve: what to do if our elected representatives fail to deliver what I and a majority of the electorate want – that is, to leave the EU and run our own affairs again. How will I express my extreme displeasure? Burn my driver’s licence? Chain myself to some railings? Buy a yellow jacket? Carry a placard? March?
I am a law-abiding lady in my seventies, but if the Government denies the will of the electorate, or mucks about with the notion of a “people’s vote”, I swear that I will consider all of the above, and more. Madeleine Foreman
Letchworth, Hertfordshire
sir – We are where we are. It is, of course, perfectly reasonable for the EU to say that it has its rules and that it cannot bend them for the UK, because that is what the EU is about. Whether the EU is sustainable is another matter – but that is not relevant to the present situation.
The UK therefore has to pursue an exit according to World Trade Organisation rules. The problem is that most MPS, including the Prime Minister, and the Civil Service seemingly do not know what these rules are.
The EU says that it is making preparations for a no-deal Brexit. Let us prepare now and go forward and grasp the prosperity that Brexit offers. Sir James Pickthorn Bt
London SE1
sir – To all those MPS who believe that Tuesday night’s vote spells the beginning of the end for Brexit, I should like to pose the following question: if not now, when? At what point would you consider we should leave the EU?
We all know the direction of travel. We are on a train, on a single track, with the destination of a fully integrated United States of Europe (USE) – with a single army, currency and legislature. We are currently in a station with a chance to disembark, yet too many MPS are afraid to do so. The problem is that we don’t know where the next station is going to be, or if indeed there will be another station.
Of course a no-deal Brexit would be a leap into the unknown, but as a prospect it is surely better than the “known known” of the USE. David Perkins
Lytham, Lancashire
sir – Please can we have David Davis back as our Brexit negotiator? Reading his piece in The Daily Telegraph (Commentary, January 16), it is clear that he has a plan that will work, and can be accepted by the EU quickly, as it is based on accepted EU deals with other countries.
The British people are not likely to change their minds about Mrs May’s deal. Therefore the deal must change. Penelope Orger
Stroud, Gloucestershire
sir – Given the recent debate and the inglorious outcome of Tuesday’s vote, David Davis’s article setting out a potential way forward provides a more constructive approach than that of “we don’t want that but we don’t know what we want”, adopted by many other observers.
It may not be right or necessarily achievable, but at least it provides a starting point. Nigel Carter
Devizes, Wiltshire
sir – If Michael Gove really thinks that “winter is coming” (report, January 16), he should get a wood burner. Ian Townsend
Chicheley, Buckinghamshire
sir – Time for the return of The Quiet Man. Step forward and save us, Iain Duncan Smith. John Mclachlan
Wadebridge, Cornwall
sir – John Allen, the chairman of Northampton Brexit (Letters, January 16), states: “Parliamentarians, from the Speaker downwards, have forgotten that their role is to represent the voters.”
I would agree with him that many seem not to care. But I take issue with my namesake’s criticism of our local MPS. I have canvassed, knocked on many doors, and conversed with people of all persuasions to promote the Leave agenda with Peter Bone and Tom Pursglove. They have both replied to my letters and emails promptly.
I would add that both voted against the Withdrawal Agreement. John Allen
Irthlingborough, Northamptonshire
sir – Yesterday morning I attempted to contact all of the Leave factions, in order to plead with them to come together and present a united and coordinated front against Remainers within and outside Parliament and the Government.
I was able to contact Jacob Reesmogg, but failed with Leave Means Leave and Ukip. No wonder the Remainers are having it so easy. Den Beves
Llanbrynmair, Powys
sir – As I write I am in Singapore, watching the BBC’S coverage of Parliament.
Once more, every live broadcast from outside the building is accompanied by wall-to-wall EU flags clearly in camera shot.
Do the producers think that viewers will not believe that the shots are live without views of the demonstrators? John Cooper
Frinton-on-sea, Essex
sir – Setting aside for a moment Jean Ponter’s praise (Letters, January 16) of Rob Watson, the BBC commentator, is there a competition going on at the BBC for which interviewer or presenter can interrupt their interviewees most often?
It would be a pleasure, for a change, to hear interviewers ask short, succinct questions, and to hear interviewees complete a sentence in reply. It would also help to hear one person speak at a time. Interviews should be for eliciting information, rather than a basis for generating controversy resembling a Punch and Judy show. Geoffrey Wyborn
Walton-on-thames, Surrey