Jeremy Corbyn performed a vital task in repositioning Labour as a distinctly left-of-centre party. Though a thoroughly decent man, he has always struggled as leader of the opposition, lacking the necessary presence, self-confidence, articulacy and flexibility of mind, and vision. With his latest utterances (Corbyn defies Labour calls for a second referendum, 3 January) he has revealed the full extent of his inadequacies. Labour’s equivocations on Brexit were always embarrassing, became severely frustrating and are now shaming.

As a consequence of Corbyn’s stance on Brexit, Labour is likely to lose the next election. Many of my friends and I have tramped the streets evening after evening during election campaigns, canvassing for the Labour cause. Not after this. Corbyn is the victim of dogma, bad advice and the clammy influence of ageing Bennites and trade unionists, and he must move aside. The country needs an opposition leader who can articulate how Labour in power would address the inequalities and unfairness in society and, at the same time, make the remain case with conviction and passion. Now the full implications of leave have become clear, it is surely Labour’s responsibility to give the people, through an election or a second referendum, the opportunity to vote for Britain to remain alongside our neighbours in Europe.

David Curtis

Solihull, West Midlands

• It says a great deal about the Guardian’s reporting of Corbyn’s attitude to Brexit that Michael Gruneberg (Letters, 4 January) thinks he “only pays lip service to abiding by his membership’s views”. In fact, Corbyn is expressing exactly what the Labour conference decided in September, namely to oppose any deal that does not meet the party’s six conditions and to call for a general election. If that is unsuccessful then all options are on the table.

And will those calling for another referendum please note that, thanks to May’s delaying tactics, there is now no time for one before the UK is due to leave the EU, and no majority in parliament to postpone Brexit in order to hold one.

Dorothy Macedo

Ferring, West Sussex

• For two years the Labour party has used every means possible to obstruct or frustrate the implementation of the 2016 referendum. It has contrived deliberate delays, and then protested about the slowness of progress. It has set impossible targets and then complained that they will not be met. It has undermined our own government by holding parallel talks with EU negotiators. And all this while being led (if that is an appropriate word) by someone with a historic record of unmitigated hostility to the European project. Even those who voted to remain are coming to see Labour as an unprincipled party interested only in benefitting from instability as a convenient gateway to power. This has alienated many traditional Labour voters.

Parliament will soon reconvene. Labour has a short window of opportunity to prove that it can behave like a responsible party whose chief priority is the national interest. If it does not, it will suffer a terrible day of reckoning at the next general election. The electorate has a memory, as the Lib Dems learned to their cost in 2015.

Dr Clive Ashwin

Aylsham, Norfolk

• Nick Wright of the Communist party (Letters, 4 January) makes the same mistakes as Corbyn regarding Brexit. He repeats the well-worn phrases of “unconstrained by EU treaties” but fails to address the problem that if we wish to continue to trade with the EU, as most businesses would, and need to, we will still have to abide by EU regulations. It is ironic, too, that “a worker-led industrial strategy; aid industry, invest in training, youth and jobs, social welfare, housing, education and health services; and take the transport, energy and postal service profiteers back into public ownership” could all be done without leaving the EU.

Governments of both colours have let down the people of the UK, leading to Brexit. For example, under Labour, though NHS funding was boosted, Blair failed to renationalise the railways, deregulated the postal service and the “integrated transport policy” that was promised never happened. Housing and education have suffered more under the coalition and Tories. This was not the fault of the EU. We need a statesmanlike leader who can not only see that leaving the EU will disadvantage Britain, but will act to reinvigorate Britain’s capabilities. Much needs to change to redress the balance of unrestrained capitalism that has seen a huge increase in disparity in earnings. But leaving means we will lose our voice within the EU to call on such changes. We need to remain in the EU, strengthen its power, and implement reforms, as the world order around us is changing. To leave now would be folly.

John Ellis

Tavistock, Devon

• It comes as no surprise to hear that the Communist party supports Brexit. This was the same fundamentalist views we heard in the 1970s from some in the trade union and Labour movement. The notion that European capitalists are a unique breed argues that the capitalists in the WTO wear a different hat. The problem is that under WTO rules there are no protective rights for workers – a sigh of relief for the US and Chinese multinational corporations. But what has that reality to do with pure and unadulterated belief? Sadly there are some in my own Labour party who would rather risk workers’ rights than take the tough course of negotiating with the economic powers in the EU. If they succeed, history will never forgive them.

Councillor Guthrie Mckie

Labour councillor for Harrow Road Ward, London

• The letter from Nick Wright echoes the much better worked out and justified articles by Larry Elliott on the benefits of leaving the European community. Both argue for the replacement of aggressive and divisive “liberal capitalism” with socialist alternatives. I am not unsympathetic.

However, my experience of working in both the UK and mainland Europe for many years and of running a small hi-tech consultancy for 25 of them convinces me that the benefits of collective strength, democratic process and community of purpose far outweigh those which might be credible in a small, declining island economy. The occasional bruises from EC bureaucracy and mild xenophobia heal. Competing with businesses from north America was, with a couple of honourable exceptions, a rush-to-the-bottom misery. I would rather brush up my French and argue for reform from within the EC than pretend any belief in becoming an isolated direct competitor of the US and China. It would surprise me if my friends and former competitors thought any different.

John Ashford

Maidenhead, Berkshire

• Your “2019: the events to watch out for in world politics, sport and arts” (1 January) claimed “a new president of the European commission is appointed (31 October)”. In fact, as laid down in the Lisbon treaty, – article 17 (7) – the European parliament (EP) elects the president on the basis of a proposal from the European council taking into account the results of the EP elections. This failure to recognise the democratisation of the EU embodied in Lisbon both colluded with the leavers in their “take back control” campaign and neglects the real prospect of a constitutional crisis in the wake of May’s EP elections as the rise of populists, nationalists and xenophobes leaves no absolute majority available for any candidate.

Glyn Ford (Labour MEP, 1984-2009)

Oldham

• 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