The amateur dramatics in the House of Commons make us even worse than Trump

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

The rules of civilised debate seem to have changed. No longer do we hear speakers promoting their causes through persuasive arguments. Now it is essential simply to point out how scary the alternatives are.

Have we really come to this? The amateur dramatics currently playing out in the House of Commons make us the laughing stock of the world. It even beats Trump’s tweets.

Bernard Cudd
Morpeth

Change UK? Yeah, right

Barely a week after the revelation that Chuka Umunna received a £10,000 donation from city banker Jeremy Isaacs, one of the Conservative Party’s top donors, comes the news that the tiny splinter group of MP’s who left Labour and the Tories to become the Independent Group – the group Umunna is spokesperson for – are becoming a formal political party called Change UK.

Given that Change UK is comprised of MPs who believe in neoliberal economics, are completely unaccountable to their constituents and are funded by rich businessmen, a more fitting name for them would be No Discernible Change At All UK.

Sasha Simic
London N16

The will of the people

Parliament’s severe Brextipation situation is certainly not aided by an antiquated system for the gathering of citizens’ votes: ballot boxes and voting booths are rather 1924, are they not?

In the 21st century, surely voting should be computerised. People could express their views daily online as they fluctuate, and in a reversal of the big brother idea, the results could be projected via a big screen into parliament: “The people are watching you!” Our elected representatives could thus gain a far more dynamic, multidimensional perception of the will of the people.

Dr Daniel Emlyn-Jones
Oxford

The poorest are missing out on what they are due

The levels of poverty in the UK are a stain on all of us. Complex though it may seem, much of it could be improved by benefit take up. As a benefits adviser I see people daily missing out on what they are entitled to. One recent example, an elderly couple, both disabled, one with a war pension, missing out on £106.19 weekly. Both the DWP and local council knew this, even notifying them they were on a low income but failed to follow up.

Likely missing out for years, I secured 12 weeks backdating of pension credit (that should have been backdated fo years in my opinion). Millions miss out, while millionaires get tax cuts! Time for change?

Gary Martin
London E17

A second ref won’t lead to an indy ref

Nicola Sturgeon calls for a second EU referendum. Presumably she hopes for the same result as before, with the UK as a whole voting Leave and Scotland Remain, believing this will reinforce her chances of success in indyref2? However Ms Sturgeon must surely realise that whoever replaces Theresa May will adhere to Downing Street’s unwavering position on a second independence referendum: “Now is not the time”.

Martin Redfern
Edinburgh

The queen should revoke Article 50

The government’s third defeat on the Brexit vote may now have the consequence of the UK crashing out of the EU on a no-deal basis, which would be a dreadful and unforeseen result that was in no way contemplated or sanctioned in the 2016 referendum.

There is, however, a clear answer to this problem and that is the royal prerogative. I recall that in October 2016 Ms May as prime minister considered the use of this prerogative to trigger Article 50. On criticism she backed down and referred the matter to parliament.

The power of the royal prerogative is today devolved to the Queen’s ministers save “in a grave constitutional crisis” when the Queen in her role can act against her ministers or without their advice. This means that the Queen could in our current exceptional circumstances revoke Article 50, which would immediately result in the abandonment of a no-deal exit.

This exercise by the Queen should not be seen as a pro-Remain or an anti-Brexit manoeuvre. It would simply be a safe and wise constitutional decision. Thereafter both the Remainers and the Brexiteers can present their cases in parliament again or in a referendum based on a true and factual basis.

David Ashton
Shipbourne