Jo Swinson, your supporters will drop like flies if you abandon a second referendum on Brexit


The leadership of the Liberal Democrats is in error in trying to abandon the commitment to a referendum to stop Brexit. Over the last 39 wasted months, the one saving grace in England has been their commitment to press for a further public vote. If they abandon this, then electorally, they will both lose their main asset – their commitment to democracy – and cast doubt on their political acumen.

The stated reason for wanting a parliamentary vote for abandoning a referendum is that the two major parties will not grant a referendum. But as they are assuming a Liberal Democrat victory in the next election, this is irrelevant. If they had a parliamentary majority they would be able to legislate for a public vote. There has to be another reason for abandoning the referendum commitment.

Trevor Fisher

  • Read more

Defecting to the Lib Dems

I do wonder whether the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Jo Swinson, has had approaches from some Conservative and Labour MPs wanting to join the party, but decided to say “no thanks”, as they are seen as troublemakers.

I certainly can think of a number of councillors, who in my mind, would not be welcomed.

Richard Grant

Respecting the referendum result

I say Bravo! Bravo! for UK prime minister Boris Johnson’s honouring of the democratically – majority-voted – will of the British people: Brexit!

Johnson realises the European Union has failed to integrate (let alone unite) the European peoples, but has also successfully cross-linked their modern-day elitist “ruling classes”, giving rise to one all-powerful, and unstoppable, oligarchy, eliminating the right to personal privacy (not to mention individuals’ access to true democracy).

Howard Hutchins

Neil Coppendale (Letters, 15 September, “The Will of the People”) is entitled to his opinion about how parliamentary democracy should work in the UK. However, Britain and the allies fought together in the Second World War to drive out fascism in Europe and the far east. His assertion that we did this in order to allow modern-day populists and fascists to implement their policies in this country has no basis in fact.

Phil Gilbert

Doing away with private schools

I don't always agree with Janet Street Porter (“Private schools must be abolished – and the sooner the better'', 14 September), but on the public school debate I think she is absolutely right. It's crazy that such a high percentage of top jobs go to the 7 per cent who are privately educated. It's as if we should choose the England soccer teams based not on ability but on how much a player's parents earn. Bonkers. The sooner it's changed, the sooner we will have a chance of being governed by really able politicians and civil servants rather than the C and D-rate bunch of privileged, mostly male, egomaniacs we currently have.

Paul Boniface
Address supplied

Support free-thinking journalism and attend Independent events

Janet Street-Porter is mistaken to believe that abolishing or phasing out private schools will improve social mobility. Parents will just pay for private tuition to gain the advantage they want. Is it not better to invest in state schools, so they can offer a wide variety of subjects and extracurricular activities? It would give state school-educated students a chance to develop the confidence that improves the life chances for public school-educated students.

Kartar Uppal
Sutton Coldfield

Read more

Read more Why are the Lib Dems now calling for Article 50 to be revoked?