Labour should be actively campaigning for a second referendum
Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.What is the Labour Party and particularly, Jeremy Corbyn, thinking? No second referendum, we want a general election. That is not going to play well with the soaring number of Remainers, is it?
The best that a Labour Party whose leader espouses the outdated will of the people as binding – and then expects the people’s will to miraculously change in sufficient numbers to bring his party to power – can hope for is yet another crippling stalemate and who would end up being duped by the DUP this time around?
The best prospect for a general election is more likely to be after a second referendum and in particular, one that shows a change in the will of the people, as it would call into question the validity of this government’s position on the EU and its authority to go on with a devalued policy.
Labour should, therefore, be actively campaigning for a second vote and in particular, one which includes the option of remaining. It may be its best opportunity of gaining power and who knows how much that power may increase in a post-Merkel Europe.
Alan Mackay
East Lothian
We should respect everyone, regardless of whether they wear a poppy or not
Yesterday I played my bagpipes at 6am at two war memorials and in a church at 11am. Nowhere did I encounter glorification, only sorrow.
My reason for this was to honour the men and women who gave their lives so that we have freedom of choice and respect for others when making those choices.
I have no religion and did not wear a poppy, both decisions received no criticism, only respect.
Doug Flack
Derby
Corbyn's singing was the best of the lot
Whilst others have been quick to criticise Jeremy Corbyn’s sartorial choices for Remembrance Day, what I found most telling about Mr Corbyn’s presence at the Cenotaph on Sunday was that he was the only politician singing “O God, Our Help in Ages Past” without having to refer to the hymn sheet.
John Eoin Douglas
Edinburgh
We can agree on one thing when it comes to Brexit – security
There is a formula to Brexit that will work. And that revolves around security.
Europe needs more security, not just for immediate defence but also for EU expeditionary operations like in Africa and anti-piracy operations off Africa.
The UK as a P5 power has diplomatic and military assets. Continental Europeans have long appreciated the UK’s service to Europe. And the UK is desirous of a generous and honourable Brexit agreement.
Therefore the no brainer solution is a final UK-EU agreement around a major investment in UK military capabilities, complete with scaling up deployments of HM Forces to continental Europe and beyond. And in return the EU could grant the UK that generous and honourable Brexit agreement such as free trade access and zero divorce payments.
Those divorce payments will be far more constructive if channelled by the government into HM Forces in the context of European security and European interest beyond the continent.
It’s a win-win outcome.
John Barstow
Fittleworth
The government’s reluctance for a second referendum is motivated by ego
Imagine if you were told on 1 January 1973 that you needed a new kidney due to various medical problems. You agreed to a transplant and everything worked moderately well for more than 40 years. Fast forward to 2016 and you begin to suffer severe medical complications which suggest the transplanted kidney is no longer working as it should. Following medical advice, you are admitted to hospital and sign a consent form allowing surgery to remove the transplanted organ. This procedure is scheduled to take place within the next two to three years.
However, on further investigation by other medical experts it becomes clear that your ‘healthy’ kidney is most likely the cause of your recent medical problems. Plans are made in 2018 to operate on your ‘healthy’ kidney as a precaution, but the transplanted kidney will still have to be removed because you consented to that procedure when you signed the form two years earlier. It’s explained to you that the remaining ‘healthy’ kidney might cease to function resulting in the need for regular dialysis for the rest of your life or at least until a new kidney can be found (most likely from the US). But despite your requests to cancel the removal of the transplanted kidney (which is still working fine), surgery goes ahead in 2019 because you gave formal consent three years ago.
Ring any bells? Surely we should demand a referendum on whether or not to hold a second Brexit referendum now that we are in full receipt of the facts. The government’s refusal to allow a second more meaningful vote smacks of a dictatorship striving to save face rather than a democratically elected body acting in the best interests of the nation.
Phil Jones
Lochinver
Nicola Sturgeon has the opportunity to right the SNP’s past wrongs
It’s right that the SNP administration seeks to embed LGBT+ teaching within the curriculum. Is it therefore time for Nicola Sturgeon to seek to return significant donations made to her party and the broader independence movement in 2007, 2011 and 2014 from billionaire businessman, Brian Souter?
Sir Brian was hugely prominent in the campaign against the then Scottish Executive to retain Section 28 (2A in Scotland), which prevented local authorities from promoting homosexuality in schools. Of course, most political parties have accepted inappropriate donations but Ms Sturgeon now has an easy opportunity to right a wrong. Or does the SNP establishment’s liberal principles not extend that far?
Martin Redfern
Edinburgh
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments