If Brexit has taught us anything, it’s that we desperately need to change how we do referendums

Imagine that the affairs of an organisation were managed by a board of 20 members and they need to make a decision on whether to go ahead with a plan which might benefit parts of the organisation but damage other parts. If the voting broke 11 to 9 in favour of going ahead, would it be sensible to do so? Would it not make better sense to keep things as they are unless and until support for a change grows? It is because of the problem of how to react to a close vote that many organisations would require a two-thirds majority, or a split of at least 14 to 6 in the case of 20 members, before embarking on major change. In the case of a company, the law requires major decisions such as changing the constitution to be made by the shareholders, and at least 75 per cent of the votes cast are needed to adopt the proposal. With such super-majorities it can be certain that the change has solid support.

The 2016 EU referendum produced a majority for Leave of 52 to 48 per cent which is a closer result than 11 to 9 (55 to 45 per cent). Why do we then hear endlessly that it is the will of the people that we leave the EU and that the result was decisive and must be honoured? If it was truly “The Will of the People” (TWOTP) then parliament would be expected to honour the result. It is a mistake, however, to regard TWOTP as identical to the choice attracting the most votes. What if one side gained 50 per cent of the vote plus one other person! It is frankly absurd to claim TWOTP, when over 16 million people – nearly half the total vote – do not share that opinion. Maybe a two-thirds majority is too high a bar but at least 60/40 should be required before talking in such terms. It is, of course, true that the election of an MP or debate in parliament can be decided by a single vote, but that is not appropriate when considering major constitutional change.

So having unnecessarily wasted three years of political life we need urgently to take stock of the management of any future referendums. It would clearly be difficult to move goal posts in second EU or Scotland referendums, but it should be made clear that any result would be subject to approval by parliament. An independence referendum brings its own issues, and debate in the country is urgently needed. Is it right that the decision is made solely by people living in Scotland, ignoring the opinion of everyone else? Surely, after 300 years, Great Britain belongs to all living in the UK.

For later referendums we must have ground rules in place. These should include a threshold for numbers voting and the requirement for a super-majority. Notwithstanding such guidelines, the final decision will always rest with parliament.

Myer Salaman

There is clearly a rise in populist politics through which those who wish to retain or obtain political power present simplistic arguments and solutions to what are extremely complex matters. They thereby obtain the support of the large numbers of voters who are ill-placed to understand the wider context, complexity, economic, social and international consequences of what they are being told. The finer points of how parliament, government, the monarchy and representative democracy coexist are often ignored and even abused.

I thus write to suggest that the same forensic interviews that our best journalists apply to our MPs might also be applied to those who are “vox popped” – picked at random on the street – to say what they think and who they support. While appreciating that this would not be an easy process to invoke, I do suggest that the weaknesses in the reasons and decisions made by those who are asked questions during the vox pop should be examined more closely and in many cases be shown to be flawed for practical reasons.

Just one example; the notion that one should support Brexit and Boris Johnson because we are “fed up with delays in implementing the will of the people” totally neglects the fact that leaving the EU without breaking the Good Friday Agreement is impractical at present. Also, 37 per cent of eligible voters – which is how many voted Leave – can’t be equated with the “will of the people”. Since “the people” are important. their views should be dissected forensically.

Dr David Rhodes
Wollaton

Mr Javid has said he is not sure how much a no deal would cost the economy in the short term. He said: “I don’t think anyone really knows a full, proper answer to that question”. But way back in the mists of time, in the era of “the easiest of deals”, and when we were told “no deal is better than a bad deal”, when every single Leaver in the country knew exactly what they had voted for, did Mr Javid then have some small idea – even the slightest inkling – of what a no deal would cost the economy in the short term?

He – now the chancellor and with access to all sorts of information - should be able to give a full and proper answer, despite it most certainly being very bad news. On the other hand, if no one “...really knows a full, proper answer to that question”, what exactly is the argument for leaving that Mr Javid thinks is worth campaigning for – other than his petty career?

Beryl Wall
London W4

I see the Conservative party – after a few absent years – have returned to the promises of incarcerating our most heinous criminals for longer in an attempt to garner support. Anyone would think an election is looming.

I wonder, do the good people of this country suffer from such a short memory that they cannot recall why we are suffering a law & order crisis? Privatised prisons, entire legal system including courts starved of funds; the unprecedented reduction in police numbers by a Tory home secretary – yes, I think her name was Theresa May, not sure where she is now; and then was it not, Chris Grayling, who single-handedly destroyed the probation service!

Excuse me if I do not take all these “get-tough-on-crime” promises seriously.

Robert Boston
Kingshill

Hasn’t it reached the stage – it certainly has for me – that whatever Boris Johnson says, you automatically think the opposite must be true?

Helen Bore
Scalby​

The hate and racism that is spreading in this country since the Brexit vote has to stop. Many of my EU students and foreign students are actually fearing for their safety. The hateful atmosphere is encouraged by our very own prime minister who models himself after Nigel Farage in order to remain in power.

We are going down a very dangerous path, not unlike what happened eighty years ago.

Professor Mark Richards
London N1