Michael Sturdee, of Culver Park Close, Kings­bridge, writes:

I voted to remain, but I accept of course that we must now leave.

This is underlined by the feeling of ‘good riddance’ ­within much of the rest of the EU – there is no going back, which all Remainers must accept.

However, Brexit is one thing, but a ‘hard Brexit’ is quite another, and is not necessarily what leavers voted for.

Indeed, nobody – including the leaders of the Leave team – had any idea, it seems, about their plan for leaving. There was no manifesto.

I therefore hold that ­campaigning for a ‘soft Brexit’ is in no way counter to the ­spirit of the referendum result and that it is perfectly in order for Parliament to debate the matter.

Indeed, one of the stated aims of the Leave campaign was that the British Parliament should be sovereign, with our own independent judiciary. So what has changed?

What has changed is that a relatively small number of Leavers, led by Messrs Davies and Fox, are hell-bent on a hard exit, even if a satisfactory soft one could be negotiated, and they do not want Parliament to have any influence on the Government’s negotiating ­position, as they fear that their ascendancy will be compromised.

They are already aggravating the situation with egregious vocal hostility to our erstwhile friends in the EU, which can only be calculated to maximise Brussels’ hostility in the ­eventual negotiations, thus making a hard exit all but inevitable.

It would be grossly irresponsible to leave the single market if it were possible to avoid that, as it would be years before alternative treaties with other nations could fill the gap.

That would cause great ­privation in the UK, as well as weakening our economy to

the extent that our eventual promised take-off would be compromised, and we shall certainly have to call for more immigrants to fill the gaping gaps in our skilled workforce.

A long recession, inflation and more immigration are emphatically not what those who voted to leave wanted.