From: Robert Bottamley, Thorn Road, Hedon.
RESPONDING to John Turley’s letter (The Yorkshire Post, January 12) accusing Brexiteers of burying their heads in the sand over (unspecified) consequences of leaving the EU, and confidently asserting (without evidence) that they will blame ‘everyone and everything but themselves’ for those consequences.
Already, many people in the United Kingdom decline to vote because they question the integrity of our alleged democratic processes; many more continue to vote while harbouring the same suspicions.
If it should happen that Brexit is blocked and the result of a democratically-held referendum subverted, those suspicions would be confirmed beyond any doubt.
The consequences of such a realisation will be far more significant and far-reaching for the UK than any temporary trade complications that might result from Brexit.
From: MP Laycock, Harrogate.
JOHN Turley attributes our 2016 referendum to 1975 Leavers refusing to accept that year’s result. But it was not obstinate Leavers but disillusioned Remainers who gave us this second referendum.
What many had thought was a mere trading association turned out to be a superstate being formed in stages. Tony Blair’s agreement to a European constitutional treaty was a last straw.
Fearing that that treaty would cost him his 2005 election, he dodged that issue by promising a referendum. That is what has led to our present situation.
From: James Bovington, Chuch Grove, Horsforth, Leeds.
I’VE just received my annual tax summary for the last full tax year ending April 2018. My contributions to the EU budget came to £47, which represented just 0.7 per cent of my total contributions.
EU contributions were therefore by far the smallest slice of the pie chart showing state spending. In contrast health spending accounted for a full 20 per cent and welfare 23 per cent. The second smallest contribution was the £81 towards overseas aid.
Brexit has always been about nostalgic jingoistic nationalistic nonsense summed up by the delusional mantra of ‘take back control’. Well let’s hope that MPs do just that and stop this whole process.
From: David Craggs, Shafton Gate, Goldthorpe.
I’M fed up of reading how democracy would be undermined if there was a second referendum on Brexit.
What is the situation if the majority voted for a particular policy that was clearly wrong?
Should we all stick by the decision because it would be undemocratic not to do so? Or should we, with new evidence, re-examine the policy and maybe vote again?
I wonder how many of your readers are familiar with the ‘whipping’ process, where MPs are told how to vote on a particular issue? In theory we could have the vast majority of constituents supporting one point of view, and their MP voting against it. Over the years this has happened on numerous occasions – how many MPs voted for the invasion of Iraq knowing full well that their constituents were against such action? So much for democracy.
From: Barry Foster, High Stakesby, Whitby.
WHAT a shambles. MPs of all parties are making of Theresa May’s Brexit plan. Could someone please tell me who could do any better? Please do not say Jeremy Corbyn. It seems to me they are completely ignoring the majority vote of the country to leave the EU.
Ever since the referendum, we have had to put up with those doing their best to get yet another vote. If this is what the future of our country is going to be like, heaven help us all.
From: Canon Michael Storey, Healey Wood Road, Brighouse.
WE keep being told that the majority of people wanted to leave the EU, according to the referendum in June 2016.
This is just a lie. Registered voters numbered about 46 million, 17.5 million voted to leave, hence a minority of those who could vote.
How much better it would have been if David Cameron and his misguided crew had stated that only a majority of the whole electorate voting for change, would effect such a change.
From: Tony Binns, Norton le Clay, York.
JUST a note to thank Lord Peter Lilley, a former Trade Secretary, and his team on producing a fine WTO paper.
Pity the general standard of debate in the Commons was not to the same standard.
I have written to my MP, Julian Smith, and suggested he tries to find the time to have a read. Better still – just go for it.
From: Ian Smith, Colston Close, Bradford.
ON suggestions we need a civil disobedience campaign, two ideas – always return future ballot papers, but unmarked; and press for an inclusion of a ‘None of the above’ option, which would probably be rejected by the establishment. So back to number one – where the power should demonstrably reside.
From: David Quarrie, York.
I AGREE with what David Blunkett wrote about the format of Question Time – and the new presenter Fiona Bruce (The Yorkshire Post, January 12).
I also think it is a shame that she has been chosen to replace David Dimbleby. She is too nice a person to be involved in the “bear pit” environment of that highly charged programme. She might prove to be a success, but I would prefer that she was not put in this new position.
From: Terry Morrell, Willerby.
WHAT is the point of a second referendum on Brexit if the result of the last one is ignored? A result is a result. Brexit means Brexit.