The crisis over Brexit has exposed our parliamentarians as ill-informed and under-prepared
SIR – How pathetic was the surprise displayed by our parliamentarians following the Speaker’s decision to disallow a third vote on Theresa May’s Brexit agreement unless substantial changes were made to it. The Solicitor General (a QC) resembled a rabbit caught in the headlights.
I hold no candle for John Bercow, but it seems his decision was perfectly rational. Why was it that so few MPS were aware of the rule he cited? Why hadn’t they been briefed by their advisers that this could happen?
This latest episode has shown that those elected to represent us – and those charged with the delivery of Brexit – are ill-informed and underprepared. No wonder they have allowed the EU’S negotiating team to run rings around us. Paul Edwards
Torquay, Devon
SIR – Speaker William Lenthall told Charles I in 1642: “I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here.”
Speaker Bercow would do well to remember that he is the servant of the House, not its master. He should not be seeking obscure and outdated rules to frustrate its wishes.
If the House chooses to vote multiple times on a particular Bill, he should facilitate these votes. For Mr Bercow to exploit the weakness of a minority Government to impose his own preferences is an abuse of office. It is bringing both the Speaker’s role and Parliament into contempt. Gregory Shenkman
London W8
SIR – The Speaker may be correct in denying a further Brexit vote by quoting a precedent that dates back to 1604. However, just two months ago he justified helping MPS seeking to delay Brexit by claiming that “if we were guided by precedent manifestly nothing would change”.
His disgraceful discourtesy in not informing Downing Street of his plans has shown him up for what he is – a self-serving, self-promoting man. Michael Brotherton
Chippenham, Wiltshire
SIR – Hell hath no fury like a Speaker who knows that he is unlikely to ascend to the House of Lords. Diane Myers
Duxford, Cambridgeshire
SIR – As Parliament has consistently acted in an undemocratic manner over Brexit, is there any reason why the Government should now abide by a ruling from the Speaker? Roy Harris
Daventry, Northamptonshire SIR – It pains me to say that Speaker Bercow is right.
You cannot repeatedly put the same proposal forward, particularly when it has twice been defeated by historic three-figure votes.
We may be embarrassed by the parliamentary shenanigans but they are a sign of a healthy democracy. Nevertheless, the law is clear. Parliament has legislated by even greater majorities the Withdrawal Act, and ratified the invocation of Article 50. Both prescribe in law our departure on March 29.
You report (March 19) that the public overwhelmingly believe we should depart on March 29 and that, even if this might cause some uncertainty, it would ultimately be worth it. Let us hope that any uncertainty would be minimised despite the undemocratic obstructionism of many civil servants, which you also report. Jacques Arnold
President, Tonbridge and Malling Conservative Association West Malling, Kent
SIR – William Hague (Comment, March 19) is wrong to suggest that Brexiteer MPS must take responsibility for the “horrors” of the Brexit delay. These MPS understand the frustration of 17.4million people and are simply seeking to ensure that the result of the referendum is enacted.
The responsibility for the “horrors” lies squarely with those MPS who never had any intention of honouring the referendum result, and with a Prime Minister who has made a laughing stock of our country. Rowland Aarons
London N3
SIR – The letter (March 19) from 50 Conservative activists, calling on MPS to support Mrs May in any future meaningful vote, indicates greater concern for the survival of their party than for honouring their manifesto pledge to remove Britain from the EU.
They should not be surprised when the 17.4million who did not vote to be half-in, half-out of the EU punish that betrayal at a general election.
The best (if not only) way to save the Tory party is to deliver a clean Brexit. Roger J Arthur
Pulborough, West Sussex
SIR – If the Conservative Party wants to survive it needs a new leader.
I recommend one who campaigned for Brexit, voted for Brexit and consistently supported the Tory manifesto promises to leave the EU, its single market and its customs union. We cannot afford another mistake. Susan Grange
Beeston, Nottingham