HINDSIGHT is indeed a wonderful thing, and nobody should expect Theresa May to possess more of it than anyone else, but at the same time the public is entitled to expect that a Prime Minister should not constantly lurch from one disaster to the next without learning anything from her catalogue of conspicuous mistakes.

First of all, she invites on a state visit an American President who is deeply unpopular even by the standards of recent American Presidents, then after declaring that she never, never would, she calls a snap General Election on the pretext of strengthening her hand in the EU negotiations; and when that blunder wipes out her party's majority she rashly signs a cheque for £1 billion and jumps in to bed with the DUP, without pausing to think that the DUP would have supported her, billion or no billion, because the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street spells anathema to them. Now Mrs May has come to the conclusion that, after all, in spite of her self-inflicted, self-indulgent horror of a General Election result, "the UK's negotiating position is as good as it was". A Prime Minister who has proved time and again during her year in office that her judgement is fatally flawed in so many ways cannot possibly be trusted to secure even a reasonable Brexit deal for the UK.

Following the General Election, Mrs May's two most trusted advisers "resigned". That was when she should have admitted that the buck must stop with her, and resigned with them.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road,

Stirling.

YOU published several letters (July 19) belittling the scores of distinguished signatories of Tuesday's letter (July 18), which raised fears about Britain's future post-Brexit. "Who needs experts?" as Michael Gove would say.

I'd set a challenge to your correspondents: to find 60 prominent Scots who think Brexit is a splendid idea. To help them in their task, I could find four: the aforementioned Mr Gove; Liam Fox; David Coburn (Ukip); and Alex Neil of the SNP. Perhaps that chap across the pond with the Hebridean mother too?

Graeme Orr,

15 Holehouse Brae, Neilston.

A NUMBER of correspondents to these pages have described those signatories to a letter seeking to stop Brexit as undemocratic, thwarters of the democratic process.

It should be noted that a narrow majority in the UK voted for the UK to leave the EU, but the disastrous consequences are becoming clearer by the day as we face falling living standards, rising inflation, slower growth and lower productivity.

The circumstances have changed and it is time to do the patriotic thing, to open up a UK-wide debate about calling a halt to the Brexit process, affording the opportunity for the holding of another referendum.

As the evidence mounts that Brexit is going to be bad news for the economy, Leavers fall back on one main argument: “the people have spoken”. Whatever the economic costs may be, however hard people will be hit, Brexit must progress, they cry.

As the contradictions in the Brexit project become evident, it is increasingly easy to find a response to the democracy argument – what has been promised cannot and will not be delivered. We would do well to heed the remarks of the economist John Maynard Keynes on this: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” The extra £350m a week for the National Health Service, will not be delivered, the vision of a pain-free Brexit is an illusion.

The view that once a decision has been taken by referendum, it cannot be revoked, is simply untrue. Brexiters argue that a new vote on EU membership was justified because the EU has changed fundamentally since 1975. This is a fair argument. But the Brexit that is going to be delivered to the British people is very different from the one that many people were promised.

In a democracy, it is always possible to think again and to choose a different direction. We need to think again about Brexit and to have a UK-wide debate about calling a halt to the process.

At a certain stage it will become clear that the Brexiters have had their chance and failed. Are we brave enough to

Alex Orr,

Flat 2, 77 Leamington Terrace, Edinburgh.

DR Charles Wardrop’s, Alan Fitzpatrick’s and JS Morrison’s democratic angst (Letters, July 19) in connection with the EU referendum, (expressed as what the Scottish “Establishment” is doing is “shocking, “breathtakingly anti-democratic” and that they are “going back to the middle ages”), is understandable. We can all conveniently claim that “the will of the people” has expressed itself, (which to some is nothing but the tyranny of a minority) and that to ignore it is a blatant violation of British, but what truly matters is where ultimate power rests; and that is with Parliamentary sovereignty. And what it gives it can take back; and it cannot bind future Parliaments; and although unconventional, it can legislate retrospectively; and it can pass inhumane or immoral laws. So come March 2019 our Parliamentarians could say no to Brexit, and there is nothing the “will of the people”, or that British democracy-thing everybody keeps talking about so fondly, could do about it.

What the UK Parliament would require to enact to have a democracy that is of the people, by the people, for the people, is a written constitution (and use it to establish the legal status of referendums) and proportional representation. However, the likelihood of being granted either is next to non-existent. So in the meantime we have to make do with whatever takes people’s and our Parliamentarians’ fancy, go along with it, and every so often rage against it.

P Fabien,

41 Kingsborough Gardens, Glasgow.

WOULD someone please explain why it would be undemocratic and not in the national interest to hold a second EU referendum when the negotiated Brexit terms are known and the public can make judgement based on fact?

History will judge failure to do so as shabby betrayal of democracy presented as resolve by opportunists.

R Russell Smith,

96 Milton Road, Kilbirnie.

THE theatre of negotiations in Brussels is not being played out with any sense of fairness. “Their” cast has Michel Barnier played by Tom Hardy while “we” have “our” man played by Oliver Hardy.

Thom Cross,

18 Needle Green, Carluke.