I fear that a second Brexit referendum could just bolster Michel Barnier's negotiating position

I voted to remain in the EU, not because I thought it was a great institution but because it was economically and culturally more sensible to do so. That said, I do not believe that forcing the government to hold a second referendum will achieve anything besides bolstering Michel Barnier’s negotiating position and weakening ours. Indeed, I am beginning to think that we should in fact just pay what we owe and walk away.

The pound will of course plummet in value if we were to take this course, but that would probably pretty much offset the extra tariffs the EU would impose. Delays caused by the EU before sensible arrangements were put in place would be the only additional hindrance, but they could be managed. Some inflation would be expected to follow which would be unwelcome, but that’s for the Bank of England to handle.

As to the service sector, well, there isn’t really a free market in services anyway and our major institutions are already positioning themselves to keep access to their European clients; as is the ghastly Jacob Rees-Mogg. If the EU says that European companies can no longer fulfil their financial, insurance and legal requirements direct with London, then so be it, that’s a nose cut off to spite an otherwise pleasant face.

So Remainers, take a step back and look to the longer game. If a referendum in 2018 or early 2019 were to go against the Leavers and we voted to remain in the EU, would they accept it? No. More likely there would be serious civil unrest and violence, such is my reading of a large minority of its supporters. That is not a price worth paying. Let’s get on the outside, take the pain, apportion the blame, and then work for closer ties with the EU and the rest of the world.

Bob Fennell​
Bromley

How totally undemocratic is it not only to call for a second referendum because your editorial staff do not agree with Brexit but to then try to call it “the final say”? Do you really think that if there were a second referendum they wouldn’t continue until they get the result they want?

It would certainly not be the “final say” because 17.4 million who voted to leave plus those who agree and believe in democracy will not just roll over.

The civil unrest caused if Brexit were stopped or changed beyond recognition in the Lancaster House speech would undoubtedly be as a result of the anti-Brexit drivel you publish every day.

Paul Harding
Address supplied

I applaud and have signed and shared your petition. However, shouldn’t it have said that a simple majority wouldn’t be satisfactory in order to change our first referendum situation and that, for any substantial change to be made, there would have to be a clear majority of, say, 70 per cent? I realise that this might deter some from voting since they wouldn’t necessarily want to go back to square one, but at least it would have been a more honest proposition.

Michael du Pré​
Marlow

Harry Cockburn must be voicing the thoughts of many (Voices, 27 July). The irresponsible decision to give any fracking the go-ahead when we are experiencing such a period of sustained heat and possible water shortage, when warnings of the need to prepare for an increase in the frequency such periods of hot weather have just been issued, and when news of the increasing role of renewable energy has just been published, is ludicrous.

Sandi Cook
Northants

It is absolutely essential that we are informed as soon as possible whether the ration cards will be printed in the UK and what colour they will be. I still have my petrol coupons from the seventies and live in hope that they will still be valid.

Steve Ford
Haydon Bridge

So there will be stockpiling and food shortages if we have a hard Brexit. This will mean rationing. Has May reassured us yet that the ration books have already been printed?

Alan Pack
Kent