Andrew Graham makes a cogent case for the idea put forward by Labour MPs Phil Wilson and Pete Kyle for parliament to accept Theresa May’s deal combined with a referendum – except that he, like the two MPs, fails to answer the key question: when is this referendum to be held (The truth is out about Brexit – but there is a route back to sanity, Opinion, 6 March)?

If we wait until the UK and EU have completed the negotiations outlined in the 147 paragraphs of the political declaration, it will take many, many years – a Brexeternity – as the nation, its businesses and workers live with permanent uncertainty as to their future. Relatively simple free trade deals with Canada or Japan take between five and 10 years to begin, complete and ratify. The proposed EU-UK future relationship as set out in Mrs May’s deal is infinitely more complex, with political and other interests both here and in 27 EU member states being aroused and in play well into the 2020s.

If we have to wait to the end of that period to be asked whether the corrupted plebiscite of June 2016, in which just 37% of the total electorate voted to amputate Britain from Europe, can be revisited, it will be a very long wait indeed.

Dr Denis MacShane

London

• Andrew Graham makes a persuasive case that the Kyle-Wilson amendment offers the best way forward, to “give the people a chance to choose between real options: either Brexit, via May’s deal, or remain”. But this disenfranchises both the hardened Brexiteer no-dealers (“just get on with it”) and those in the Labour party who still advocate a renegotiation aimed at a form of Norway-plus. And if a majority voted remain, who would form a government to implement the decision?

Given this multi-choice stalemate, the only constitutionally proper course is to hold out for an election. This would force the parties to rethink their positions. The Tories would have to decide between a managed no-deal and “Brexit in name only”. Labour might recognise that any form of soft Brexit, whether the May deal or some version of Norway-plus, would be demonstrably worse than remain – then it could stand on its 2017 election manifesto and treat Brexit as a side issue, a proposal that essentially had been tried and failed.

Both parties would lose some support, but after the election the largest party would have the democratic authority to form a government and implement its programme.

Alan Bailey

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