Readers respond to Jeremy Corbyn’s plans to support an amendment for a second referendum if Labour fails to get its own version of a deal passed this week

Polly Toynbee says that Labour’s mission must be to prevent any Brexit (Journal, 26 February). This is not the right message to convey. Meanwhile, I heard a Labour MP say that Jeremy Corbyn, in coming to support a public vote, is failing to respect manifesto promises. This is as far from the truth as Toynbee’s view of Labour’s mission.

Labour’s manifesto actually said that the party would “build a close new relationship with the EU, protect workers’ rights and environmental standards, provide certainty to EU nationals and give a meaningful role to parliament throughout negotiations”. Two things follow from this: 1) Labour MPs should stand firmly opposed to May’s deal, and, of course, to a no-deal exit; 2) parliament must now play a role in preventing the prime minister from defying parliament.

For Labour supporters, the case for a new public vote does not rest on the party having a mission to prevent any Brexit, as if it were a party of remoaners who might stand accused of “betraying the people”. The case must be that such a vote coheres with the manifesto, is demanded by the policy decision of the 2018 party conference, and can be a route out of the place that an autocratic Tory prime minister, determined to appease the far right in her party, has striven to take the country.

The case for a public vote is harder than it should be to make. Thanks to rhetoric that has taken hold, many have succumbed to the myth of the mandate that must be obeyed. This leads many to think that the referendum result must be enacted no matter how damaging the consequences of the government’s implementation of it, no matter how the facts have changed, and no matter how opinions may have changed. The shame is that there is now so little time for Labour to dislodge the myth.

Jennifer Hornsby

London

• Aditya Chakrabortty should not have based his argument for Labour to support a people’s vote on the often-quoted TSSA poll of Labour leave voters (If Labour aids this Tory plot it will be crushed by what follows, 25 February). The relevant statistics are not the greater number of pro-remain over pro-Brexit Labour voters. The more relevant data concerns the numbers of leave voters in the 20 Labour-held marginals most vulnerable to the Tories – 16 of these constituencies voted for leave. Almost as relevant are the 45 Tory-held Labour target seats. More than two-thirds – 37 – of these had leave majorities.

If Labour does not win a majority in both these types of marginal, they will not win a general election in which Brexit is a major issue. Holding on to its predominantly remain-voting constituencies will not give Labour the 64 extra seats necessary to get the majority to form a government. Irrespective of whether a new referendum could reverse the result of 2016, Labour would most probably lose a subsequent general election.

Bryn Jones

University of Bath

• It seems Jeremy Corbyn can’t win. Now that he has finally “thrown his party’s weight behind a second EU referendum” in the inevitable eventuality of Labour failing to get “its own version of a Brexit deal” passed this week, the criticism keeps on coming (Corbyn: we’ll back a public vote to stop Tory Brexit, 26 February). Despite the decision being eminently sensible, both politically and electorally, showing up the rebel Independent Group for their over-hasty defection, and the feebleness of parliament being exposed by divisions and indecision, Corbyn’s move is seen as being “divisive”, having a “corrosive impact on the sovereignty of parliament”. Over the last few weeks his refusal to support the idea of another vote was seen as being anti-democratic, presumably eroding the “sovereignty of democracy”.

The fact that Corbyn is prepared to allow the voters a final say shows his determination to avoid a disastrous no-deal exit, and deserves support and praise from all Labour MPs. If some are still reluctant to acknowledge sensible leadership, it makes one wonder whether they would vote in parliament to end austerity, increase taxes on the rich, and support all the other excellent policies proposed in the last Labour manifesto. After all, isn’t it the “sovereignty of the people” that really counts?

Bernie Evans

Perth, Western Australia

• It was Richmond (Yorks) Labour party what did it. On 13 February it called on our party leadership and MPs to urgently follow up the Brexit resolution passed overwhelmingly at conference, which included “campaigning for a public vote”.

Barbara Hawkins

Great Ayton, North Yorkshire

• I am afraid this is no more than another tactic by the arch-Brexiter Corbyn to keep his ramshackle show on the road. He knows there is no parliamentary majority for this and so has not even bothered to try to articulate what he means by a public vote. And how does Kyle/Wilson solve anything? If May’s deal is voted through it will not be possible to hold another referendum before we leave the EU on 29 March. So even if the second referendum reverses the result of the first, it will simply leave the UK needing to apply to rejoin.

No, the only sensible course is for the majority of MPs who are in favour of remaining to table a bill mandating the government to write to the EU, reversing the article 50 letter. The people’s will will be overridden, but in this case the vote to leave was the same as a vote for every household to have a government-funded Rolls-Royce and champagne and caviar for breakfast every day – it is simply not something the country can afford to do and it is for responsible MPs to act accordingly and vote to protect the national interest.

Raj Parkash

London

• 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