Christopher Rainger , Willy McCourt , Rose Levinson and Paula Lanning respond to an interview with the former prime minister, while Nigel de Gruchy warns against a second referendum and Philip Astley suggests the government should follow the Danish example of parliamentary consultation

Why does it have to be left to Tony Blair (Interview, 16 December) to state the obvious – that Brexit is a delusion and is doing enormous damage to our country while distracting attention from the huge need for political, social, economic and tax reform? Even the self-promoting Boris Johnson can see that options like a Canada-plus agreement turn us into a “vassal state” (Labour the key to soft Brexit, rebels tell May, 18 December), giving us none of the benefits of remaining and reforming the EU, with stupendous cost and drastic loss of influence.

Where are the big beasts of the Labour party? Why are they wasting political energy arguing that they could make a better fist of Brexit, when they know it’s impossible? As Blair so cogently argues, Brexit won’t solve the problems facing the people who voted for it. Brexit can only impoverish us and make these problems worse.

Surely the New Year must see a new approach by Labour – that Brexit was a gigantic howl of protest, but it must be reversed by a “people’s referendum” – or a general election – as soon as possible. Labour must work to turn the popular discontent in Britain and across Europe into a major reform agenda – make it more democratic, give more local autonomy to individual countries and move it away from the stranglehold of the economic libertarians.

Tony Blair can’t lead this fightback – he’s far too tainted. But what he said in Saturday’s interview with Decca Aitkenhead is far too serious to be dismissed as the ravings of a political has-been.

Christopher Rainger

York

• I strongly agree with Tony Blair about Europe. But if he is unable to change his mind on the wisdom of overthrowing Saddam Hussein, how can he possibly hope to persuade people who voted leave in the referendum to change their minds? Like Mr Blair with Iraq, the steadfastness of leavers’ support for Brexit would be impressive if its consequences weren’t so tragic.

Willy McCourt

London

• Tony Blair will never live down the Iraq war. It’s a shame, for Blair has many things to recommend him. But he was terribly wrong on something with far-reaching consequences, and will not find his way back to credibility.

I wonder if the same might not be said of Jeremy Corbyn regarding Brexit. Corbyn has many strengths. But I’m beyond saddened at Britain’s decision to leave, and Corbyn’s tacit endorsement of that move. Whatever the EU’s failings, it provides some counterweight to a failing US and a rising China. The negative financial impact of Brexit looks to be dire, adding to desperation and despair.

Corbyn no doubt has reasons, personal and political, for not speaking against a process with consequences stretching far beyond his public moment. He will be judged negatively for his absence on Brexit, and history will not be kind. As with Blair, his (non-)stand will obscure whatever else he achieves.

Rose Levinson

London

• It is ironic that the Labour party, so committed in its manifesto to policies based on principle, lacks a distinctive principled approach on the key question of Europe. Simply reflecting its own differences doesn’t inspire confidence in the ability to govern. The absence of agreement in the Labour party has resulted in confused “pragmatism” rather than true leadership. Keir Starmer is doing a heroic job, but the cracks are glaringly obvious.

How come Labour can distinguish itself from the Tories in so many positive ways but fails to bite the bullet on a matter so fundamental to the social and economic progress it espouses? On this at least Tony Blair is right to argue that “the key national priority right now is stopping Brexit”.

Paula Lanning

London

• Martin Kettle offers a very perceptive analysis in his Opinion piece (After this week, I no longer see Brexit as unstoppable, 15 December), which I share except for his assertion that “a second referendum is now absolutely central to any such effort”.

A second referendum surely runs the risk of being dominated by the issue of respect for the people’s vote in June 2016, whereas a properly informed debate examining the merits of the case, conspicuous by its absence in 2016, is desperately required especially in the wake of a tsunami of new facts.

Kettle rightly identifies that sovereignty still lies with parliament. It is constitutionally entitled and better equipped to deal with the mountain of detail involved. Wise political parties would leave MPs free of whipping arrangements to focus on the case.

After this week, I refuse to believe that Brexit is unstoppable | Martin Kettle Read more

Brexiters never respected the 1975 referendum result. Remainers have every right to challenge the 2016 result, a right publicly claimed by Nigel Farage and company when they contemplated losing in 2016. The remainers’ right is strengthened when you consider the growing evidence of infection by dubious finance, electoral malpractice and even foreign sabotage.

Nigel de Gruchy

Orpington, Kent

• Could it be that we have something to learn from other countries about how relations between government and parliament can be managed when negotiating deals with Brussels if a parliamentary majority for their outcome is uncertain (Theresa May is keeping Britain in the dark. She deserves no applause, 16 December)? From Denmark, for example. There, no single party ever has a majority, so governments always have to clear their lines with their parliament in advance through the committee system. For Danish ministers to conclude a deal, or get close to doing so, without securing a majority would be to run the risk of landing themselves in something like Mrs May’s recent (avoidable) embarrassment. A nightmare they prefer to avoid.

The current focus on asserting parliament’s right to consider the Brexit outcome after a deal has been struck seems too narrow. The country’s future relationship with the EU is of massive significance to all of us, so surely every effort should be made to avoid last-minute fiasco. Getting a deal acceptable to a majority is far more likely if there has been preliminary parliamentary consideration of the opening bid, and parliament has been associated with the negotiations as they proceed. The larger parties would have to come off the fences on which they wobble at the moment, but eventually they are going to have to do that anyway. The issue is of such importance that parliament should insist on consultation now. So should the government, to strengthen its hand in Brussels and reduce the risk of major upset later on.

Philip Astley

(British ambassador to Denmark 1999-2003), Egerton, Kent

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

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