May’s deal will probably be put to parliament for a third time – so why can’t we have a second referendum?

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

I have one question for our esteemed and confused parliament.

Why is having a second referendum anti-democratic, as it appears to be considered in some government circles, but it is democratic for Mrs May to place basically the same deal before parliament twice? And now it appears possible if not probable she will place it for a third time before parliament.

I find the British concept of applied democracy a little bit confusing.

Anonymous

As someone who voted Remain, for most of the past two years I have gritted my teeth and reminded myself that a democratic majority in the referendum, even though of only 4 per cent, is still a democratic majority.

However, the past couple of weeks have shown that in parliament, or at least in the PM’s mind, if you don’t like the result of a vote – even one with a large majority – it is fine to bring the same question back for a second vote. She may even try for a third vote on her deal.

If a second vote is acceptable to Mrs May in parliament, I now have to ask, why is a second referendum wrong for the electorate as a whole? Especially as, since the first referendum, we can all now see just how little not only we, but even our parliamentary representatives, even understood of the real implications of an exit from the EU.

Christine Couchman
Brantham

Where are the young people?

During these last few weeks of the Brexit process I have watched all the parliamentary debates and a surfeit of television news reports, particularly from the BBC.

In those reports, there is usually an interviewer who seeks the opinions of “ordinary” people – in the street, the workplace, the pub, even in one case, a dance hall.

Almost all of the people interviewed are older, some very old indeed, and they almost exclusively express strongly held opinions without any justification or awareness of the complexities of Brexit or modern society. On BBC news I have just watched an interview with older people demanding a quick Brexit while sitting in a bar in Spain. For goodness sake!

Although I am now old by any definition, it enrages me that we seldom hear younger people interviewed about Brexit. I don’t mean students, although obviously they qualify, but employed people with a future and a long-term working life ahead of them. And people who have thought about this complex issue. And people who are positive about the European project.

There are plenty of articulate, thoughtful, younger people out there who can see Brexit for what is – a blight on their lives and their children’s opportunities. And a retreat from international partnership for motives that are, frankly, selfish and mean spirited.

Why are our television reporters not finding these people? Why are they not getting more of a platform?

Alan Gwyer
Basingstoke

No way to a no deal

Those advocating the retention of a no-deal Brexit option argue that it strengthens our negotiating position with the EU. However, to be credible, a last resort weapon has to be more damaging to your opponents than to yourself. A no-deal Brexit would clearly be more damaging to the UK than to any other EU country, and is therefore an idle threat.

John Wilkin​
Bury St Edmunds

The EU is undemocratic

Now that parliament has rejected a no-deal Brexit it seems that an extension to Article 50 is inevitable. That, however, depends on the decision of the European Council - the collective council of heads of government. The Commission, a separate body with carte blanche powers which cannot be removed by public vote (unlike the UK government with whom it negotiates), is unlikely to be sympathetic to such an extension. The Withdrawal Agreement is on the table and that is final. It will not be interested in Common Market 2.0, a Norway-style Brexit, or anything else. Its sole interest is in protecting the status quo of the EU and it has no electoral consequences to consider, whilst dismissal at the ballot box is a burden for the British government.

If the track record of the EU is observed it can be seen that it has a preference for negative decisions taken by referendum to be reversed. It engineered this in Denmark and in Ireland. A refusal to budge by the EU will force a second referendum in the UK – exactly the preferred option for the EU. The Commission has scant regard for the democratic processes of its member states, whilst holding in elevated respect its own carte blanche powers and the indirect and weak democratic processes within the EU.

That is not to say that the EU has no merit but rather indicates the drastic structural reform that the EU requires as an institution.

L J Atterbury
Poland

Jeremy Corbyn is a threat to the established order – and that’s why he’s attacked

In the 2017 general election, Labour gained 40 per cent of the vote, and the largest increase in its share of the vote since the 1945 general election. Jeremy Corbyn, who started the campaign 20 points behind in the polls, achieved this result following two years of attacks from all sides, and, in the words of the BBC, “in the face of a brutal onslaught from the print media”. He had, again in the BBC’s words, “changed British politics” and “showed, amazingly, that Labour did not have to move to the centre to win votes but could do so from the unashamed left”.

Does this totally unexpected result explain the extraordinary escalation in the onslaught from the BBC and other establishment institutions since then? Do the countless absurd smears stem from the fact that Jeremy Corbyn and his policies are now seen as a clear threat to the establishment in this country? The Labour MPs opposing him see their power base in the party, established over the past 30 years, under attack, but know that with half a million party members behind him, a further challenge to his leadership would fail. They do not understand that the era of submission to Thatcherite policies is over.

Anyone standing outside a polling station in May 2017 could see what these Labour MPs cannot: instead of the usual trickle of elderly voters, large groups of enthusiastic and optimistic young people turned out to demonstrate that they were not fooled by many of the unfounded smears of antisemitism, espionage etc, and that they understood the Labour leader was under attack from all sides because he stood outside the establishment, and because his policies threatened the political dogma that had prevailed since Margaret Thatcher won power 40 years ago.

Those who hold power naturally want the status quo to continue untroubled: power never cedes without a fight. But the people are eager for change, and want a government that serves the public, not powerful vested interests. Jeremy Corbyn’s policies articulate their anger at the failed privatisations of public services, and widespread deregulation. Ordinary Labour Party members want MPs who will not undermine the party’s democratic processes, or sabotage their efforts to achieve a Labour government. A Labour MP from the left of the party brought us our most treasured institution, the NHS. Now that the country is suffering in every sphere under Tory austerity – from poverty to knife crime to slum housing – Labour has the policies to prove the BBC correct in their assessment that British politics has indeed changed, and moved, with the Labour Party, to the left.

Ruth Steigman
Address supplied