By voting to block no deal, Parliament has disregarded a fundamental principle of Brexit
sir – What madness is this? MPS voted to invoke Article 50 knowing full well that it might involve, if necessary, leaving the EU without a deal.
Yet on Theresa May’s rudderless ship, even ministers are able to ignore their own manifesto and defy a three-line whip to take this option off the table. The Prime Minister, her Cabinet, her Government, the Conservative Party and Parliament have totally lost the plot. Iven Chadwick
Poynton, Cheshire
sir – With MPS’ vote to remove the option of no deal from the Brexit negotiations, democracy has been overturned.
We will be permanently attached to the EU, and on the EU’S terms. Can the public ignore this vote as Parliament has ignored the will of the people? Sara Bastin
Stroud, Gloucestershire
sir – Philip Hammond has stated that there would be a £27billion bonus if we left the EU with a deal, but failed to point out that there would be a £39billion saving if we left without one. I know which I would prefer, but economics was always my strong point. David J Harrop
Macclesfield, Cheshire
sir – Through residency I am entitled to vote in two constituencies.
Both MPS representing these constituencies were junior ministers who defied the Government and voted to take no deal off the table. One at least had the self-respect to resign.
This vote completely undermines Britain’s negotiating position, and these people either cannot see it (in which case they should not hold positions of responsibility) or their motive is to frustrate Brexit but they don’t have the courage to admit it.
Whatever the explanation, I am looking for another candidate (in either constituency) to vote for at the next general election. Adrian Johnson
London SW19
sir – Most of us may agree that Mrs May is hopeless, but she is still Prime Minister and has the right to hire and fire her ministers.
Firing is exactly what she should be doing to all who defied the whip. They have no place in the Government, and probably not in the Tory party either. If Mrs May won’t act, I hope their constituency associations will. Roger White
Sherborne, Dorset sir – How dare they? Veronica Timperley London W1
sir – It is extraordinary that the majority of MPS would rather be dictated to by Brussels than rule themselves from Westminster.
Honour the referendum result? What liars they have proved to be. The expenses scandal was bad enough, but this is corruption on a massive scale. Nicola Hemingway
Arundel, West Sussex
sir – It is obvious that Mrs May intends to hold another meaningful vote, and she will probably continue to do so until she gets the result she wants.
This, of course, is exactly how the EU conducts itself when it gets a vote that it does not like. Maria Bower
London SW1
sir – Why is there is now an official differentiation between meaningful and non-meaningful votes?
Should not all votes taken within our elected legislature be meaningful? Robert Levy
Salford, Lancashire
sir – Like most of your readers, I have
followed the antics of our Prime Minister and her Government with increasing despair.
What Mrs May and her cronies have always failed to recognise is that they are trying to negotiate with a bunch of EU bureaucrats whose very existence would be threatened should they allow Britain to leave the EU, since this would risk triggering its break-up.
In addition, Mrs May has allowed herself to be guided by Olly Robbins
– a civil servant for whom, of course, Brussels is bureaucratic heaven, with 20,000 unelected officials calling the shots without interference. Under this hopeless Remainer Prime Minister, Brexit was always going to end badly. Captain Graham Sullivan RN (retd)
Gislingham, Suffolk
sir – Are our Parliamentarians so self-obsessed that they fail to see the monstrous injustice in a Remain Parliament trying to define Brexit for a Leave electorate?
The public doesn’t expect MPS to “come together to see what they [Parliament] will support”, as Hilary Benn characterised it in an interview on Sky News yesterday. Instead, it expects MPS to support an orderly withdrawal leading, in pretty short order, to freedom from the single market, the customs union, and EU law – all of which were explicitly cited as consequences of the referendum and general election upon which nearly all current MPS were elected. RP Gullett
Bledlow Ridge, Buckinghamshire
sir – Once the referendum decision was known, politicians should have had a clear vision of how to go forward. This would have entailed: leaving on March 29 2019; setting up trading agreements with countries across the world; inviting the EU to negotiate a trading agreement with us; and declaring no hard border on the island of Ireland.
Instead they went as petitioners to ask for favours and the EU negotiators have run rings round them simply by saying no. Now it may be too late to obtain anything like a good deal. M J Connolly
Handforth, Cheshire
sir – Had the Government wanted to do things properly, it would have published a considered document on the consequences of no deal, with contingency planning for each ministry.
A recent article by a senior civil servant disclosed that secret plans are in place. But Project Fear continues, and we are kept in the dark. Neil Kerr
Pontrilas, Herefordshire
sir – I am an anaesthetist, and it is standard practice that, when I give a general anaesthetic, I have not only a
plan A, B and C but also a plan D, so that I can keep a patient alive if all else should fail once they are anaesthetised.
I do not understand how David Cameron could have initiated a referendum without a single plan in the event of a vote for Brexit. I hold the life of one person in my hands. He initiated a life-changing event for 66.85 million Britons.
An old adage springs to mind: by failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail. Dr Janis Burns
London SE16
sir – MPS have rejected an amendment calling for a second referendum.
Recent polls suggest that, in the event of a second referendum, the majority of British people would vote to remain.
Many of the Brexiteers’ claims turned out to be unjustified. They also failed to warn people about the adverse effects on the economy – and, particularly, the poorest in our society.
Brexiteers continue to argue that, for the sake of democracy, it would be wrong to overturn the will of
17.4 million voters. But what about the 16.3 million who voted to remain, plus the 13 million who did not vote and the Leavers who now wish to remain?
If the way ahead is unclear, we should stay as we are. Graham Mallinson
Bradford, West Yorkshire
sir – We Brexiteers should not be despondent. We may have lost a battle – but we have most certainly not lost the war.
At present, Britain is in much the same position as it has been for several decades. As long as we don’t sign up to any new treaties – such as Mrs May’s disastrous “deal” – we are no worse off, apart from the loss of some room to manoeuvre by the idiotic removal of the no-deal option.
With March 29 barely two weeks away, we now clearly need more time to prepare for leaving. Rather than getting a short extension to avoid clashing with the May elections in the European Parliament, we should request longer. Although our influence in Brussels has never been great, by continuing to have representation there we can at least make our voice heard, see their briefing papers and continue to keep a finger on the European pulse.
Of course, the fundamental decision to leave still stands, and we should develop a more coherent plan for doing so when we feel we are ready. By then, perhaps, Parliament will have become clearer in its own mind, too. Michael Allisstone
Chichester, West Sussex
sir – If the Attorney General can give an opinion that Article 62 of the
Vienna Convention can be invoked to negate the risk of the Irish backstop becoming permanent, I suggest that members of the European Research Group and the DUP could announce their intention to vote for Mrs May’s deal if it is presented to Parliament for a third time – on the understanding that she resigns as Prime Minister next month. Sam Dunning
Guildford, Surrey
sir – I can’t see what would be gained by replacing the Prime Minister.
Whoever succeeded her would still be stuck with the same sack of ferrets. Sandra Jones
Old Cleeve, Somerset
sir – On March 17 1845, Benjamin Disraeli said in the House of Commons: “A Conservative government is an organised hypocrisy.”
What has changed? John Sabin
Pulborough, West Sussex
sir – Like Felicity Thomson (Letters, March 14), I joined the Conservative Party to vote Mrs May out.
However, I am unsure if there will be a Conservative Party left by the time voting takes place to decide on a new leader. David Lawson
Leamington Spa, Warwickshire
sir – Irrespective of individual voting, can we at least agree that our Prime Minister has worked incredibly hard for very little thanks, and huge criticism?
When this debacle is finally over, I hope she will receive the appreciation she richly deserves from a electorate quick to criticise and slow to praise. Barbara Mills
Harpenden, Hertfordshire
sir – Many of your letter writers say they worry about who they would vote for in the event of a general election.
The real problem is that party politics stinks. The very word “whip” says it all. No party, whether existing or proposed, will have a monopoly of the truth yet they all smugly peddle the ridiculous lie that they do.
Oh for a Parliament of independent MPS! That way lies much better democracy. Come any general election, I will look for an independent and patriotic candidate to vote for. Someone who puts his or her own conscience first, the constituents’ wishes next, and then the country’s needs – with no party label or danger of being whipped. Voting for such a candidate means that one votes for what one believes in.
If nobody stands here on that ticket, then I suppose I’d better say goodbye to £500 and stand as an independent myself. Hugh Williams
Swindon, Wiltshire
sir – When I think of the Government’s crass ineptitude over Brexit I see a vision of myself as the subject of Edvard Munch’s painting The Scream. Geoffrey Grimwood Colwyn Bay, Conwy
sir – If there is one consolation to be had from this sorry Brexit process, it is surely that the nomenclature has provided some great names for future real ales.
One can well imagine ordering a pint of Irish Backstop – an excellent name for a heavy, hearty stout (with no specific use-by date).
I can also envisage being tempted to try a pint of Malthouse Compromise. It sounds like a nice, light session ale to me. Though I now worry that it would fail to live up to expectations and turn out to be watery. Mark Willingham
London E18