A general election cannot solve the mess Brexit has got us into

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

I cannot contemplate voting Conservative again faced with the prospect of the current government (AFP/Getty)

The outcome of the general election now being fought over in parliament will doubtless be determined largely by voters’ allegiances on Brexit – akin to a referendum in all but name, but with one important difference.

With a first-past-the-post system, all those votes cast for parties that fail to win a seat in a constituency will not coalesce to carry the weight they would if cast in the context of a proper second Brexit referendum with a withdrawal bill (out) or Remain option.

A general election cannot possibly be the solution to the mess parliament has made of this whole Brexit process – and I speak as a lifelong Conservative voter who voted Remain but frankly cannot contemplate the thought of voting Conservative ever again faced with the prospect of the current Johnson-led party in power.

Diane Learmont-Hughes
Wirral

Johnson must accept his deal is no good

Last week parliament took back control and blocked Johnson’s plans for blasting through his Brexit plan. MPs just did their job – they are not the delegates of their constituents but their representatives, and their role is to scrutinise proposed legislation to ensure the interests of the nation are being served.

Now it is Johnson, not anyone else, who needs to “man up” and accept that his deal cannot work. Theresa May’s deal was rejected three times, and his is even worse for the UK. It should not have surprised anyone.

Bullying others into supporting an early general election in the hope of filling parliament with new people more likely to support him will not make his deal any less bad.

There are only two possible actions now: unilaterally revoke Article 50, but that will likely do nothing to resolve the divisions created by this sorry saga; or have a Final Say vote. The choice should be straight between Remain and Johnson’s bad deal as the only two options on the table. Brexit is too big a topic to be resolved by a general election.

After three and a half years of failure, it should now be obvious that the “will of the people” of 2016 cannot be delivered within the constraints that have been set. It is not parliament which has frustrated that will, but the dogmatic approach of the government in imposing its limitations to future status (the infamous “red lines”) based on its own failure to understand what the EU is and has achieved, and what it has delivered for the UK, its people and its economy.

Charles Wood
Birmingham

Reimagining the political game

These days it is not often that MPs are to be congratulated, but they do deserve praise for a new game they have invented, which should sell well with the coming of Christmas. The game is called You’re Stumped! and the object of the game is to block any move the opposing team wishes to make.

In the event that a move is successful, the opposing team must try to find a way around the blockage. The rules are simple: there are none. Unlike chess, there is no time limit between moves and it is possible for a game to take a very long time to come to a successful conclusion. Any number of teams may play and it is allowed that players may move from team to team as the game proceeds.

There is a referee who has the responsibility of making sure nobody cheats, but it has been known for a referee to favour any friends involved in the match. Cheating is quite naturally frowned upon but has been known to take place. If cheating is discovered, then a vote is held to establish whether it was cheating or a variation of some unwritten rule dating back to the Middle Ages.

No betting is allowed, but a great deal of bargaining between the teams is an essential part of the game.

The possibility of a game lasting longer than three years is not impossible.

Colin Bower
Nottingham

Regarding Boris Johnson’s ‘fantastic’ deal

Boris Johnson studied classics and should be well aware of the true meaning of “fantastic” when he uses it to refer to his deal.

How about: fanciful, inconceivable, impossible, or imaginary as more honest translations?

Rosemary Ratcliffe
Stratford on Avon

Why should Remainers like Tony Blair be held to different standards than Brexiteers?

How curious that Tony Blair is branded “interfering” for telling Jeremy Corbyn to resist giving way to an election, yet President Macron’s veto on a three-month extension invites no comment whatsoever?

Is it merely coincidence that the French president shared time with Boris Johnson fairly recently, and that Macron chose to break the EU “norm” of staying out of domestic politics?

There has been, predictably perhaps, a lot of “blame-gaming” going on, but if David Cameron can comment without drawing criticism, why is Tony Blair’s contribution so different?

I’m not a fan of either agent, as it happens, but I think Tony Blair has more right to get directly involved than Macron.

For me, this typifies the frequent bias aimed at any or all Remain voices that seek to protect the best interests of the people by ensuring proper scrutiny of the proposal, and by seeking to remove the threat of no deal, with legitimate parliamentary processes – unlike Johnson who, in my opinion, has bent no end of rulings in support of this mammoth folly.

This coincides with a leaked document suggesting that, as I feared and warned, our workers’ rights are likely to fall victim to this right-wing coup, if we allow it.

People died over hundreds of years fighting to secure those rights.

Are we really prepared to throw them away in the pursuit of a right-wing fairytale that threatens also to hang, draw and quarter the United Kingdom as we know it?

We really are slipping back into the Dark Ages, aren’t we?

Michael Cunliffe
West Yorkshire

We must change our attitudes towards so-called vermin like grey squirrels

Three cheers for Tracy Battensby (Letters, 27 October) for her defence of so-called invasive species. I have no patience with people who claim to have conservation credentials but are ruthless in their persecution of such animals as grey squirrels.

Tracy correctly points out that red squirrels were until relatively recently slaughtered in vast numbers by gamekeepers and other enemies of all wildlife except those they can shoot or hunt to death.

Most of these kinds of attitudes can be traced back to the bloodsports fraternity, who have two classifications for animals – vermin or game. They bolster their attacks on those they consider “vermin” with propaganda which is grossly exaggerated, if not simply false.

It is not the fault of the animals that they were introduced into this country, almost always by owners of stately homes who thought they would decorate their estates. A more intelligent and compassionate approach to conserving native species and a more tolerant approach to “invasive” animals who are in fact doing no harm would make a refreshing change.

Penny Little
Oxfordshire