ROBERT Bell and Alastair Easton (Letters, August 20) are right that so far there’s no majority in Parliament for making Jeremy Corbyn caretaker Prime Minister. But, like Jo Swinson, they conveniently ignore the fact that there’s no sign of a majority of MPs being willing to bring down the Government either, far less for a second referendum.

The LibDems like to pretend this is because Mr Corbyn won’t support one. In fact he whipped Labour MPs to vote for a second referendum in votes in March and April this year. Some Labour MPs who had heavy Leave votes in their constituencies voted against – and would again, under any Labour leader or caretaker PM. And not enough Tory “rebels” like Ken Clarke voted for it. Mr Clarke, one of the LibDems’ proposed caretaker PMs, has ruled out a second referendum and backs leaving with a customs union; an option the LibDems have repeatedly rejected.

Mr Corbyn’s solution of a General Election to try to get a majority in Parliament for a Labour government, a renegotiation, and a referendum on the deal (or lack of one) or remaining, would be a good option. But so far a majority of MPs refuse to back that, claiming Corbyn’s too extreme. In reality many fear losing their own seats in elections.

There is no majority for anything unless at least a dozen MPs change their minds and support some option they’ve previously opposed. And all the potential changers think it should be other MPs who change their minds, not them.

The LibDems and Labour might be able to prevent a No Deal Brexit by backing leaving with a customs union, or maybe even staying in the single market (Mr Corbyn already said he’d consider retaining freedom of movement). But that would mean backing a soft Brexit. The LibDems have said they’ll never back any kind of Brexit. So do they actually prefer No Deal, and blaming Mr Corbyn for any recession, or even deaths due to medicine shortages, it causes, to preventing it?

Duncan McFarlane, Carluke.

ONE'S heart must go out to the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, subjected to a BBC grilling recently about her voting for austerity measures and so on when in coalition with the Conservative Government. "But that was six years ago!" she squealed.

As time and principles move on, should we be prepared to let bygones be has-beens?

James Stevenson, Auchterarder.

IF anything sums up the current Brexit shambles, it is today’s headline in the business section of The Herald: “Pound drifts down as PM Johnson meets Merkel” (August 22). For goodness sake don’t let him meet any more foreign leaders.

David Hay, Minard.

IT is a rare exchange of letters that actually enlightens us all about any subject, but we all must be grateful to Robert Menzies (Letters, August 22) for outlining the respective roles of the European Commission and the European Court of Justice in the interpretation of EU treaties. I – a mere barrack room lawyer – bow to his superior expertise.

However, his erudition does not negate my original point, which was the in 2014, voters were faced with a judgement between the potential risk outlined Ms Reding’s letter on behalf of the Commission and the view of Alex Salmond, unsupported by independent legal opinion. Accusations of “Unionist lies” and “Project Fear” are a myth: the Redding letter was the best available information setting out a genuine risk.

Moreover, Mr Menzies might like to consider that the judgment of the ECJ could easily have been in favour of logical and impartial interpretation of the Commission. This appears to be another area (like their currency plan) where the Nationalists had no Plan B.

Peter A Russell, Glasgow G13.

REGARDING the Rev David A. Collins's call for Rowan Williams to be Prime Minister (Letters, August 21): yes please. Can one call a former archbishop a Welsh wizard? We need certainly need one.

Sandra Phelps, Glasgow G20.