May’s cynical Brexit vote delay all about her keeping power | Letters
Despite disagreeing with her, I previously thought Theresa May a prime minister doing her best in what she considered the national interest. The cynical delay in Tuesday’s vote (Report, 11 December) marks a sad failure of integrity. If substantive changes could realistically be negotiated with the EU, it might have been a reasoned position. As this is not the case (particularly in regard to the crucial “backstop”), the only rationale for a delay lies in hoping sufficient MPs will be panicked by the imminent prospect of crashing out without a deal into supporting a cosmetically touched-up version of the current deal. This is doomed to failure. I can only repeat Leo Amery’s words to Chamberlain (quoting Cromwell): “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.”
Dr Martin Treacy
Cardigan, Ceredigion
Theresa May’s forays away from Westminster are just distractions aimed at keeping her in office in the meantime. She wants to delay the vote for as long as possible to deny sufficient time for any other option (leadership contest, general election, another referendum, alternative deal) to be viable prior to Brexit day.
May knows the only consensus within parliament is the one against a no-deal outcome. With business leaders screaming to avoid this result at all costs and perhaps with markets then in turmoil too, she expects MPs to buckle at the cliff edge and finally back her deal. Polly Toynbee and other supporters of a people’s vote must find ways to thwart this dire plan.
Peter Mendenhall
Nottingham
Polly Toynbee thinks May will defer parliament’s vote on her deal “until the last possible day” (This cowardly blunder may have saved us all from Brexit, 11 December). Dream on. There will be no vote, because, as on Monday, it would fail. A motion of no confidence in the government would almost certainly fail too, because the prospect of Corbyn as prime minister is anathema to the DUP. The DUP are perfectly happy where they are, holding the balance of power in Westminster. As in judo, MPs need to beware the opponent who knows how to use your own power against you.
Tim Shelton-Jones
Brighton
As a staunch supporter of a final vote, with the hope of a remain but reform victory, I was alarmed by Polly Toynbee’s red line that supporting “curbing” EU immigration leaves only the option of crashing out with no deal. To ensure this doesn’t happen remainers must demand the EU shift its emphasis towards the managed migration policies already practised by many member states, rather than its damaging deification of free movement.
As former Labour home secretaries Charles Clarke and Alan Johnson have made clear, if there is a people’s vote then the millions who still feel immigration is inadequately controlled could be as decisive in a second leave victory as they were in 2016. Remain and reformers must make clear that EU rules already allow controls by insisting migrants be either working, actively seeking work or self-sufficient, and if not they can be removed after three months, assisted in some countries by a workers registration system. Funding staff and technology to enforce such measures will be crucial, as will migration impact funds for local communities still experiencing rapid local population change, even with such controls.
None of this would stop EU citizens coming here to work in jobs where we have staff shortages, particularly in the health and food sectors. But eventually, as Polly Toynbee argued last week, the key must be for the UK to train and adequately pay its own citizens to fill most such jobs.
Colin Hines
East Twickenham, Middlesex
I believe that one of the only good things to come out of Brexit are the articles written by John Crace. They are wonderful examples of the English language, and I place him among the wittiest of writers of all time. Clever and biting and hilarious. Who could not admire this sentence: “A blonde amoral blob of self-pity in desperate search of a single principle over which he could resign to become the hero of his own narrative”?
People have said Brexit is making Britain the “laughing stock of the world”. This could not be further from the truth. We are watching repeated acts of democracy play out. What other country would have the confidence to do this in full view of the world? Other countries deal in secret, afraid of their own citizens.
I wonder if the impasse on Brexit could be broken by having parliament vote on whether to remain or not. An open vote, constituency by constituency, without reference to party, each MP deciding on behalf of their constituents whether to remain or leave, based on the events that have evolved over the last two years, and their conscience. Let them take responsibility, represent their electors, and decide once and for all.
And a final plea. If Britain is going to have another referendum, then please make it compulsory to vote (like Australia and Luxembourg), and hold it on a Sunday, when many more people will have the time to vote.
Andrew Lesh
Kehlen, Luxembourg
Mrs May voted to remain in the EU but changed her mind. She said there would be no 2017 election but changed her mind. She signed up to the Irish backstop in 2017 but tried to change her mind. She promised a meaningful vote on the EU withdrawal bill this week but changed her mind. Her former Brexit minister said “if a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy” but then he changed his mind about that. Why can’t the British people change their minds too?
Chris Webster
Gümligen, Switzerland
Guardian columnists now seem united in their certainty that a second referendum is the only option for Labour, but it doesn’t matter whether or not it would provoke rioting by those who voted leave. The problem is that it risks undermining the democratic process in perpetuity, and therefore Labour’s credibility as an institution committed to democratic change. I voted remain, and deeply regret the UK’s decision to leave the EU, but demanding that Labour adopts this strategy is an incitement to political suicide, and should be resisted.
Jon Griffith
Hastings, East Sussex
Is there any reason the SNP could not propose a vote of no confidence? There may be no precedent for the third party in the Commons to do so, but these are unprecedented times. Never before has a government been found in contempt of parliament or forced to abandon its central policy.
Kevin McGrath
Harlow, Essex
Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition