THERESA May is quite wrong to say that Parliament is under a duty to "deliver the Brexit the people voted for". Under our well-established representative democracy, parliamentarians are elected to exercise their judgment and answer for it to their electorates. Holding a referendum does not alter this. There is the further problem that there is no consensus on which Brexit people voted for.

This is a straight clash between direct democracy (a referendum) and representative democracy (parliament), and there is no legislation that addresses it. For our Prime Minister to say that those who voted for Brexit would feel betrayed if MPs vote against it is to stoke resentment. This is deeply irresponsible of her, and very dangerous. Brexiters made much of the authority of the British Parliament during the referendum campaign. This is a constitutional crisis, and Mrs May should be upholding the proper function of Members of Parliament. They are not slaves to a referendum.

Tim Bell,

11 Madeira Place, Edinburgh.

IT was interesting to highlight that in her speech at a factory in Stoke-on-Trent Theresa May noted that failing to honour the 2016 Brexit referendum vote would do "catastrophic harm" to the democratic process.

She cited the furore created if an anti-devolution House of Commons had over-ruled Scotland or Wales when it voted in favour of devolved legislatures.

Unfortunately for Mrs May, following the 1997 devolution referendum to establish the Welsh Assembly, she voted against it in the House of Commons.

Indeed, the 2005 Conservative manifesto pledged to offer the Welsh people a "referendum on whether to keep the Assembly in its current form, increase its powers or abolish it".

The venue for Mrs May’s speech of a china shop could clearly not have been more appropriate.

Alex Orr,

2/3 Marchmont Road, Edinburgh.

Read more: PM's last-ditch appeal

IT is surely the height of irresponsibility for Theresa May, as the UK’s Prime Minister, to resort to such inflammatory language as to claim that failure to vote for her Brexit deal would be “an unforgivable breach of trust”. Furthermore, in threatening MPs to “back my deal or face catastrophe”, she is guilty of raising the fear of civil unrest if, as seems likely, the House of Commons refuses to back her.

Her stubborn refusal to countenance alternatives to her doomed Brexit deal takes obduracy to a new level. She has boxed herself in with her "red lines" and has wilfully pandered to the Brexit wing of the Tory Party.

At present we are faced by a House of Commons that, apart from a strongly-expressed rejection of a No Deal, is hopelessly divided with no clear support for any of the options currently being tossed around. Surely the cherished democratic wishes of the much-troubled British citizens are best served by delaying Article 50 and holding a second referendum when a better-informed electorate, having now a far clearer idea of the costs and consequences of leaving the EU, can express their preferred choices through the ballot box.

Eric Melvin,

6 Cluny Place, Edinburgh.

HAS anyone else noticed the change in Theresa May’s binary choice over the weekend as she becomes more desperate? No longer is it between “My deal or no deal”, but now is between “My deal or lose your grip on power” – the threat to end all threats, that Tories will almost certainly respond to as she wishes. Have Tories ever done otherwise?

L McGregor,

Gartcows Road, Falkirk.

I READ with interest Dr Ronnie Gallagher’s letter (January 14) in which he made use of words which we do not often come across, namely xenophile and xenomania. I turned to the dictionary to determine their meaning. A xenophile is one who is especially interested in/attracted to foreign peoples, cultures, customs and languages while xenomania is an extreme passion/inordinate attachment to foreign things (customs, people, institutions, manners or fashions).

I may be misunderstanding Dr Gallagher but I assume he is using them, in the overall context of his letter, in a derogatory fashion. I see no problem whatsoever with being a xenophile. On the other hand xenophobia, the prejudice against/fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign displayed by some Brexiteers, is a more sinister matter altogether.

However, having said that I see no evidence whatsoever in the letter (January 9) to which Dr Gallagher takes exception, of xenomania. Furthermore I find Mary Rolls’s letter (January 14) on the “minor figures” who signed the letter strange in the extreme in view of the fact that they included three lords (one of whom was a Secretary-General of Nato), four professors and a former judge of the European court of Justice and that’s just for starters.

John Milne,

9 Ardgowan Drive, Uddingston.

THERE should be another referendum. The first was held without enough detail of the process and the possible consequences on whichever way the vote went. Despite Jeremy Corbyn`s assurances that Labour would be able to negotiate a better deal, on the assumption they were to win, I am fairly sure that the EU has had more than enough of meetings and will stick to its guns on the deal it has given.

The options on the referendum would have to be quite clear: “Revoke article 50 and remain” , “crash out with no deal” , “accept the deal on offer” or “hold a General Election” in the faint hope that the parties will stick to their election promises and be able to keep/use them. I am certain that the cost of a referendum will be considerably less than the money currently, and in the near future, being spent on playing with lorries, hiring ferries, purchasing fridges and freezers and so on. What a mess.

George Dale,

21 Oakwood Drive, Beith.

BOTH Labour and SNP keep criticising Theresa May’s deal which, in reality, is certainly not a good one. But are clear heads thinking of realistic options? All opposition parties are using Brexit for their own narrow political ends. A second referendum is not only democratically questionable, the actual questions will create a storm and the eventual answer is unlikely to be clear cut enough to allow progress. Similarly, a General Election is unlikely to provide a massive majority for anyone. So the real question to be posed is either to abandon Brexit altogether or exit the EU with no deal. Is that not simply where we started off from?

Dr Gerald Edwards,

Broom Road, Glasgow.