We are now approaching the moment of truth over Brexit

The moment of truth for MPs will come when they vote on one likely amendment, above all others, to the Bill now required to trigger Article 50. That amendment will likely require a second referendum to agree or reject the final Brexit deal. It should also enfranchise 16- to 17-year-olds, and Britons living on the Continent. A second moment of truth would come if such an amendment is ruled out of order.

The best line to take must surely be that Article 50 must be triggered but a consultative referendum must pass judgement on the final deal, then Parliament will make a binding decision on the result of all that, as is their duty. This combines the supremacy of parliamentary democracy with a proper and fair use of referendums.

John Gemmell
Great Barr, Birmingham

Dear everyone complaining about Parliament debating Article 50 – you wanted our sovereignty back, now you’ve got it. This is the democratic process you keep banging on about operating as it is supposed to. Now, please, zip it.

Julian Self
Milton Keynes

If I may semi-plagiarise Sir Walter’s Scott’s line in Mermion, “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we decided, the EU, to leave”. To appease his Eurosceptic MPs and a perceived threat by Ukip in the run up to the last general election, David Cameron promised a referendum on whether or not to leave the EU. As the UK as a whole voted to leave by a narrow margin we have the situation where Theresa May has to deal with a somewhat unfriendly Europe combined with devolved administrations of the UK, particularly Scotland and Northern Ireland. They are demanding special conditions because their respective populations voted to remain in the EU. Northern Ireland’s border with the Irish Republic and the economic benefits arising from an open border adds to the complex mix.

The election of Donald Trump as US President, who claims to want to fasttrack a trading agreement with the UK while reneging on the Pacific trading agreement, is not helpful to May who, we assume, wishes to negotiate trading agreements with Pacific nations as well as the US.

I do not envy May her task of trying to square several circles. David Cameron, in the meantime, walks away whistling.

Patrick Cleary
Honiton

For the second time in under a week, Siobhan Fenton has claimed that Northern Ireland voted to Remain in the EU by a margin of 56 per cent. Not so: the margin was only 11.6 per cent (55.8 per cent to 44.2 per cent). Of course, 11.6 per cent seems like a large number until it is considered in the context of the whole of the UK – 91,265 votes out of a total of 33,551,983 votes cast. I make that just 0.27 per cent of total votes.

By contrast, in England the margin for Brexit was only 6.8 per cent (53.4 per cent to 46.6 per cent) which is a majority of 1,921,410 votes or 5.73 per cent of the total votes cast in the UK, as well as being more than twice the total number of votes cast in Northern Ireland (790,149).

Thankfully the Supreme Court has now ruled that Parliament has control over initiating the Brexit process, and equally thankfully the Assemblies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales do not have a veto on whatever course Parliament allows the Government to take.

Roger Chapman
Keighley

Why does no reportage of the failure of the missile test point out that the UK’s “independent” nuclear weapons are not, and never have been, independent? The missiles are American in origin and are purchased by the UK Government from that source. In addition, little mention is made of the fact that each individual missile, whether it malfunctions or not, comes with a hefty price tag of £17m.

As to the cost of an “armed” missile, one can only assume that the addition of several nuclear warheads, which the missile is programmed to deliver, would greatly increase the costs of their use. Is this part of the so-called deterrence strategy as well?

Sylvia Carter
Address withheld

Could it be possible that the Trident missile was made to malfunction as an act of cyber-warfare? After all, computers would have been needed and used to launch this test missile. Unlike in wartime, the fact that a test missile was to be launched had to be made public to ensure that aircraft and ships kept clear of the designated target area. It would have been tempting for enemies of the UK and US to try to carry out a deliberate cyber warfare attack given this scenario. Has this possibility been overlooked by the powers that be? Or are they keeping us all in the dark?

Jake Pepper
Wallasey, Merseyside

What does it matter whether one of those infernal devices goes off target? In a real life situation, should one be launched we would only expect to live a matter of minutes before the retaliatory strike arrived – assuming that they were aimed accurately.

John Iddon
Kendal

At the risk of being lynched for suggesting that another election might be necessary, I do believe that we need one to elect a new Leader of the Free World. Since the end of the Second World War, through the Cold War and the rise of international terrorism, the office of President of the United States has assumed, or had bestowed upon it – or both – that title. This surely cannot apply to the new incumbent?

How can an isolationist, bent on building walls in literal and figurative guise, inward looking, possibly be suitable to hold such a lofty and symbolic office? I’m sure the loss of the title won’t bother President Trump or his supporters one jot, but it does give there rest of us something to ponder upon.

Peter Morris
Liverpool

Undoubtedly huge numbers of people around the world did watch Donald Trump’s inauguration but how many of them were watching in horror, despair and disbelief?

Penny Little
Great Haseley

Are we now headed for a TTIP-style deal specially tailored to a country which has little real leverage over the US and whose government is desperate to prove to its voters that the world is gagging to trade with us?

Arthur Streatfield
Bath

Reverend Gavin Ashenden is to be congratulated for resigning so he could speak out publicly about the Koran reading during a cathedral service. It is quite wrong for leaders of any church to include in a service of worship statements which do not honour God or which contradict Biblical teaching. How much more serious is it when a cathedral, the mother church of a diocese, denigrates the person of Jesus?

Efforts to develop understanding between different faiths are to be applauded but leaders of a church must uphold Biblical teaching, especially in services. How else can those of other faiths respect what the Christian church stands for? Church services are celebrations of the Christian faith; quite different from activities which are aimed at improving relations between Christians and those of other faiths. Who will respect the church if it waters down the truth it proclaims? The church is not part of a “post-truth” society.

Jonathan Longstaff
Buxted