For and against a People’s Vote

Martin Kettle (16 August) is correct to warn of the risks associated with a second referendum. There is a strong possibility that unless it is organised in a much better way than the first it will lead to similar division and confusion.

As we approach the autumn, the central political issue will be the real position of the Labour party towards Brexit. The Chequers deal is likely to be overwhelmed by a combination of Tory disunity and the EU having the audacity to stick to the rules that we helped form. The question that will then emerge is whether Labour’s current position of a closely aligned Brexit is as much pie in the sky as Chequers. Labour will be under increasing pressure to jettison the illusion of a better deal negotiated under its tutelage and to adopt a strategy of rescinding article 50.

Such a reversion of policy would need a popular mandate. We could achieve that through a general election fought with clear positions from both parties: the Tories advancing their ideas of Brexit and Labour saying no to this completely stupid idea. The government then elected would have a clear message from the British people to sort out the mess we are undeniably in.
Paul Lally
Liverpool

• Having a People’s Vote would be difficult and complicated. But so is any other direction from where we are now. It’s an irresistible reminder of the old joke about a man asked for directions who says “I wouldn’t start from here”. That we stumbled into the 2016 referendum without proper constitutional guidelines, as Kettle highlights, is only one example of how our patched-together, accidentally accreted, unwritten constitution is wholly unfit to run a country in the 21st century.

Alongside the People’s Vote we need a debate, and action, on fixing our broken system of government. The people whose vote was directed in 2016 by a desire to “take back control” of their communities and country were absolutely right to feel that way. But where we need to take control is Westminster. A People’s Vote isn’t about going backwards, but about building a large coalition determined to, finally, 100 years after some women got the vote, to make Britain a democracy in which people feel, and are, in control.
Natalie Bennett
Former leader, Green party

• Parliament’s insouciant handing the issue to a popular simple-majority vote got us into this mess, and it’s up to parliament to exercise its responsibility to get us out of it.

We need a two-stage parliamentary vote: one to accept or reject whatever deal might be achieved (no problem if accept), or if reject, then one for stay in or crash out. And it should be a free vote: what hope of getting a satisfactory whipped result if the two major parties remain so divided? At least we could blame our MPs rather than each other if things don’t end well.
Conrad Natzio
Woodbridge, Suffolk

• 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 other Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread in our print edition