While Jerry Hodgkinson (Letters, 9 September) uses Labour’s position on Brexit as an opportunity for a cheap swipe at Jeremy Corbyn, he makes no case against it. The party suspects that a Brexit deal better than the one arranged by the May government is possible, and would like to explore that possibility. It also suspects that even an improved deal would be worse than no Brexit at all. Nonetheless, it would like to give the people the final say on the two options.

It is hard to imagine any democrat objecting to this position. The alternative would be to run the general election as a proxy referendum, with each party setting out a clear Brexit or no-Brexit outcome in its manifesto and then, if elected, proceeding without further public consultation. But it would be a shame to have a single-issue election and the situation would be difficult if parliament were hung. Also, without knowing whether a Brexit deal that is better than May’s is possible, the manifestos would be premature.

Dr Simon Brodbeck

Cardiff

• Emily Thornberry suggested that, if Labour wins a general election and is able to negotiate its own deal to leave the EU, such a deal should be put to a public vote with remain as an option and with Labour campaigning for that very option.

If Labour does that it will be seen as acting in bad faith, negotiating not to get the best but the worst deal. If the party is to campaign against its own deal in favour of remain, then surely the worse the deal it negotiates, the better the chances of winning support for remain.

Fawzi Ibrahim

Trade Unionists Against the EU

• Jerry Hodgkinson is not wrong about the incoherence of Labour’s Brexit policy. A much more coherent – and electorally viable – policy would be to negotiate a new remain deal in tandem with a new leave deal. This could address some of the problems the left has with the EU – for example, the enforced marketisation of the single market, the obligation to avoid excessive government deficits, the revolving doors between EU regulators and the financial industry, harsh tariffs imposed against Africa, and employer and agency abuse of the posted workers’ directive.

Labour could then, as a “remain and reform” party, respect the referendum by making remain and leave options more specific than they were in 2016. Both would complement Labour’s domestic policy and ensure that it could campaign for remain and reform rather than for an electorally damaging “keep the status quo” option that voters have rejected.

Peter McKenna

Liverpool

• Fair enough to sneer at Emily Thornberry (The three questions that will decide the next election, Journal, 7 September), but will one of the scoffers tell us what we’ll be voting on when the people’s voice is being heard? Surely not remain or no deal; scarcely remain or Theresa May’s deal; nor, heavens above, remain or leave with the threat of kickstarting the political merry-go-round all over again.

Glyn Ford

Former Labour MEP (1984-2009)

• It may be hard to roll up Labour’s Brexit policy into an easily digestible soundbite, but it is surely not beyond anyone’s wit to understand it. The 2016 referendum result took remain off the table and both main parties committed to negotiating a withdrawal. But a second referendum puts remain back on the table, and it is logical to take the same stance as in 2016: that staying in the EU is a better option than even a Labour-negotiated Brexit.

Giles O’Bryen

London

• Emily Thornberry’s muddled pronouncement on Brexit policy suggests Jeremy Corbyn was right to resist the pressure to support a second referendum. Labour should now drop the idea, promote a general election and campaign wholeheartedly to remain.

Tim Oelman

Pinner, London

• Jerry Hodgkinson mocks Labour’s approach to Brexit. While it might be easier to offer referendum options of remain and “a poke in the eye with a sharp stick”, there has to be something on the table for supporters of leave as well as for remain to vote on, even if a Labour government prefers the latter. It’s what governing in the interests of the country – AKA leadership – involves.

Derrick Cameron

Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire

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

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

• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition