The favourite solution for a soft Brexit is now apparently the Norwegian model. But, as Donald Tusk told us, there will in the end be only two real choices: a hard Brexit or remain. Ian Rutledge (Letters, 14 June) reminds us that the Norwegian option will not satisfy the concerns of those who voted leave. It means accepting the free movement of people. It also means accepting EU regulations without a say in making them. We lose sovereignty, not recover it.

Most important, the effects of Brexit are beginning to bite: a fast-growing shortage of EU nurses, worsening the crisis in the NHS; accelerating inflation, declining living standards, a slowdown in economic growth, an increasing number of companies planning to move abroad. And we ain’t seen nothing yet. What if there is little progress in negotiations or they break down over money? Yet talk of the option of remain is taboo in parliament, because the referendum verdict is deemed sacrosanct. When will MPs get real? Leavers said Brexit would provide £350m a week more for the NHS. Instead we face a possible bill to leave of £100bn. People did not vote to make Britain poorer. Indeed, research by YouGov about what motivated leavers found they overwhelmingly believed Brexit would have no costs. When the consequences sink in, a major shift in opinion, it concluded, is on the cards.

Emmanuel Macron and Wolfgang Schäuble have thrown us a lifeline, inviting us to stay. The separate anti-Brexit bodies should now urgently unite to form a cross-party democratic alliance to stop Brexit before time runs out.

Dick Taverne

Liberal Democrat, House of Lords

• When a declared Green party member like Michael Gold (Letters, 14 June) can reject the EU single market on environmental grounds, unreconstructed remainers like me really do have a problem.

Apparently the urban waste water, habitats and water framework directives matter not a jot, even though they and other environmental directives underpin the single market. The UK was instrumental in several of these, and other Europeans referred to them as “the British directives” (so much for “taking back control”).

Why can’t people grasp that the single market requires adherence to directives that are designed to limit the capacity of individual European states to pull a production fast one by failing to internalise environmental (and other) costs? We can’t be in that market in any sense without abiding by that principle; and, like Norway, we will, if outside the EU, be unable to contribute to the development of the very regulations that make it work.

There are all kinds of reasons that make production cheaper in some places than others and that lead to the transportation issues Gold identifies, but at least the EU has done its best to limit the scale of abuse. I despair for the UK if its future is to walk away from responsibility for the wider world.

Keith Richards

Cambridge

• Should Labour or a progressive coalition come into power and continue with the Brexit negotiations, such a poisoned chalice could tar its reputation for years to come. If Labour were to come in on an anti-austerity ticket, Brexit could leave it in tatters. Inflation, slowing economic growth and investment are already setting in. The wage squeeze can be argued to be a direct consequence of Brexit.

Negotiating Brexit and dealing with the consequences and aftermath will be incontrovertibly associated with the party in power. In opposition, the Tory party would be in a position to blame economic disarray on the political ineptitude of those in power.

The rightwing press would not even allude to the Tory party having caused the crisis. The strength of negative feeling towards those in power would be overwhelming. Does Labour really want to find itself in that position?

Why is there no reasoned and rational political pushback against Brexit before it is too late – at very least another referendum, especially given the torrent of misinformation that spewed out during the last one?

Paul Daly

Leeds

• Keir Starmer (Report, 16 June) rejects calls for a cross-party committee on Brexit but is open to a progressive partnership. Given that the UK faces the most significant constitutional change in its modern history, it is imperative that people from different parties, from different regions, and with different views are brought together to shape the future of our country. The alternative is for the process to be conducted behind closed doors, by a minority government propped up by the DUP.

The Conservatives put their Brexit plan to the electorate, and lost their majority. The landscape has fundamentally changed, and this must be reflected in the approach to Brexit. Unlock Democracy’s latest report, A Democratic Brexit, highlights several models for how parliament can be meaningfully engaged in the process. For example, the Danish government is required to get an agreement from a cross-party committee for any negotiating strategy which guarantees scrutiny, and similar models must be explored for Brexit.

Brexit must, above all, be democratic. An inclusive, consensus-based approach is not just constitutionally and democratically important but a practical necessity. If the government pushes forward with plans that have not been endorsed by a majority of the electorate, then we could face a fatal undermining of our democratic institutions.

Alexandra Runswick

Director, Unlock Democracy

• If the general election really was about Brexit it is depressing that 84% of voters voted for the impossible. Labour has followed the Tories to the Mad Hatter’s tea party where they squabble over the single market but all hope to have their cake and eat it.

Proposing to leave the single market but still enjoying access to it on the same terms as EU members is an offer that is either confused or dishonest.

Why would the EU 27 tear up their fundamental principles to accommodate a UK that has opted to leave the club? The truth is they won’t. MEPs, including many Labour MEPs, know this to be the case.

Delusion and dishonesty have triumphed. It seems that those of us who have been upfront and realistic over our post-Brexit relationship with the EU have been punished at the ballot box. Ruth Davidson is right to suggest involving other parties in exploring how we approach Brexit. This must include strongly pro-EU parties like the Greens who favour giving people a say on the final Brexit deal. A failure to get real on Brexit will mean ultimately that the electorate punishes those who promised cake but delivered crumbs.

Molly Scott Cato MEP

Green, South West England

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters