IT was intriguing to note that leading Brexiter Mark Francois, MP, earlier this week wrote a letter to Graham Brady MP, the chair of the Tories 1922 committee demanding another vote on Theresa May's leadership of the Tory Party ("Brexiter MPS call for ‘indicative vote’ on May staying on as Premier", The Herald, April 9).

In December Theresa May survived a no-confidence vote which was triggered by 48 of her own MPs who had grown disillusioned with her handling of the Brexit process. Two hundred Tories backed Mrs May, whilst 117 voted against her, with Mr Francois being in the latter camp. The MP for Rayleigh and Wickford now wants a second "informal" indicative vote on Mrs May, given the change in circumstances since December.

This is rather odd as we have had the spectre of Mr Francois, who is dead set against another referendum on the UK’s position in the EU, now looking again to oust Prime Minister May. In addition, we have witnessed MPs having three says on trying to pass the Withdrawal Agreement, many of whom changed their minds over the course of the votes.

The irony will surely not be lost on anyone that Mr Francois seems to find no issue in MPs like himself being able to have countless votes on matters, but woe betide the public, many of whom have likewise changed their minds, being afforded the same opportunity.

Alex Orr,

Flat 3, 2 Marchmont Road, Edinburgh.

OWEN Kelly (Letters, April 9) is right. A second EU referendum vote is now essential. This has nothing to do with keeping the warring sections of the Tory Party together or taking away the responsibility of Parliament to govern the nation on behalf of all its citizens. It is a simple matter of common sense and modern democracy that before major changes in circumstances are created they must be approved by those who will be most affected.

The electorate now knows far more about the real benefits of remaining within the European Union than they did in 2016, when they were disgracefully misled by far right little-Englander politicians like Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg. We now recognise that the political, economic and social benefits of membership far outweigh any disadvantages or loss of sovereignty. In fact the EU system of government is superior in many ways to our own antiquated British parliamentary system, still hide-bound by tradition and echoes of past glories and international supremacy and influence.

At this critical moment in British history it is a massive disappointment that the Government and country are led by a politician who clearly has no feeling for, nor understanding of, the critical situation the UK is facing. Nor does she seem to appreciate or accept any responsibility for the long-term damage that her hard-line attitude will cause, especially for future generations whose careers and life experience may severely damaged or curtailed.

Surely the only sensible policy is to now hand the matter back to the British people (including those just too young to vote last time) and ask them to confirm or deny that this long-term damaging outcome is really what they want?

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

Read more: How would a second Brexit referendum work?

ONE way to break the deadlock in Parliament would be to propose a second referendum that included No Deal, Remain and every kind of Brexit deal the EU has said it could accept; such as Theresa May’s deal, Labour’s proposed deal, a permanent customs union and the Norway (Single Market) option.

With this many options the voting system would have to be the Alternative Vote so that if no option got a majority of first preference votes, one option ended up with a majority of votes after voters’ second and other preference votes were counted.

This would have the potential to get the support of a majority of MPs, like those who voted against Mrs May’s deal by big majorities for many different reasons.

Marking first, second, third and preferences as 1, 2, 3 etc beside each option is simple enough for voters. Australia already uses the Alternative Vote – and for voters it’s no different from how they vote in council elections in Scotland already.

After an all-options AV referendum no MP could claim they didn’t know whether a majority of voters wanted that particular option. Nor that voters were denied the chance to vote for their preferred option.

Duncan McFarlane,

Beanshields, Braidwood, Carluke.

AS the Brexit process lurches from pillar to post rather like a ball rattling around a bagatelle board, I sometimes wonder what would have happened had the Remain side carried the day back in 2016 by a similarly narrow margin.

Would there have been factions proclaiming that this result was evidence of a desire for further integration with the European project, that we should immediately join the euro/press forward with a European Defence Force/other institutions that Messrs Draghi, Junker and Tusk were contemplating while Mr Cameron and other ministers were touring EU cities to try to persuade European national politicians and EU functionaries of the need to amend some of the structures and functions of the EU?

Christopher W Ide,

25 Riverside Road, Waterfoot, East Renfrewshire.

AS the arguments rage in your Letters Pages (April 9) over the wisdom, or otherwise, of a second referendum a pause for reflection is needed. The people voted in 2016 but are now being told they were not in command of the full facts. Theoretically now we are. If this is the case, why can the politicians not agree on the "correct" course?

Putting this decision back to the people is simply going to get a confused answer because there is actually no clear-cut path ahead.

There can only be two outcomes. A bigger vote to leave or a reversal of the first decision and then we enter another round of in fighting over the "validity" of this second vote. Would it not simply be better to accept the original vote, otherwise absolute chaos will ensue? Who is going to insist the second verdict trumps the first unless it is for Leave again, in which case why not just accept it now and move on?

Dr Gerald Edwards,

Broom Road, Glasgow.

AS Theresa May’s Government careers towards the Friday deadline, our last chance of avoiding a No Deal Brexit is to revoke Article 50. Anything else requires the consent of all EU members, which cannot be taken for granted given the incompetent and provocative way our Government has handled the negotiating process. There has been a petition before Parliament demanding such a revocation, which rapidly collected more than six million signatures, with the total still growing by around 10,000 per day.

Despite Scotland’s decisive vote to Remain, Scottish constituencies have not responded well to this petition. My own constituency of Glasgow East, which I understand is also the First Minister’s home constituency, is among the poorest responders, at 7.35 per cent of the electorate, compared with responses around 40 per cent in London constituencies. The petition can found by entering “petition revoke article 50” in any search engine.

John McMaster,

2 Manse Road, Mount Vernon, Glasgow.