Why ardent Brexiteers are to blame for UK still being in EU - Yorkshire Post letters

ROBERT Bottamley (The Yorkshire Post, May 30) accuses me of being obsessed with remaining in the EU, and whining over the result of the EU referendum. Although it is true that I voted to remain, and was disappointed that the majority of the electorate voted to leave, I accepted that this was the democratic decision, and that Britain would leave the EU in some form or other that reflected the voting patterns in both the 2016 referendum and the subsequent 2017 general election. Theresa May’s deal, although not ideal, was at least an attempt to try to achieve this.

The majority of the whining and ranting in recent months has in fact come from ardent Brexiteers like Mr Bottamley, who have rejected outright any form of compromise over the EU Withdrawal Agreement.

The great irony now is that we would have left the EU on March 29 had it not been for the uncompromising stance taken by many of the Brexiteer politicians and their supporters, who have changed their position as to what Leave meant since the referendum. He also confirms the point I made about their interpretation of democracy being that only their views are considered, and those of the remainder ignored.

Meanwhile Nick Martinek (The Yorkshire Post, May 31) launches a particular attack against Theresa May whose main crime appears to be to (unsuccessfully) seek some sort of compromise over Brexit.

He goes on to suggest that she is the EU’s administrator in the UK, and part of a conspiracy to keep the UK under the legal, financial and judicial control of the EU. This is not only ridiculous but laughable. It’s worse than the “reds under the bed” fantasy that we used to get from the Tory right in the 1960s and 70s.

From: Mrs BJ Cussons, Curly Hill, Ilkley.

I WOULD be very grateful if someone could explain why the Speaker, John Bercow, claims the right to decide when his tenure should end.

I cannot believe he has the right to stay in office. There is surely some contract to his employment. It is already several years ago since his bullying was supposed to release our country from his presence. Was his predecessor not removed?

He does nothing to improve the activities of the House of Commons. Perhaps if he was threatened with reduced pay- off terms pro rata to his time in office we could get rid of him quickly.