There was never any consensus for Brexit – a second referendum would give us one

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

(Getty)

Perhaps the biggest problem with Brexit is the absence of consensus either in parliament or in the UK at large. And this really matters when a nation is voluntarily changing the course of its own history. In the US, for example, a two-thirds majority is required in both houses of Congress to change the constitution, and this then needs to be ratified by at least three-quarters of states.

True, 52-48 is a win, but it is not a consensus, and let us not forget that governments have a duty to govern for the whole population, not just for core supporters or just in the pursuit of a special interest. Furthermore, a yes-no referendum is a blunt instrument when teasing out numerous and complex issues and some broad interpretation is appropriate. Whilst 67-33 could be viewed as a consensus for a full-fat Brexit, 52-48 should, in my view, be interpreted as justification for a soft Brexit.

However, we are where we are and it is possible, despite weak and distrusted leadership in all political parties, that we are heading for a form of soft Brexit. Arguably, few of us want this outcome but then it is perhaps also an outcome that most of us can live with, at least temporarily.

Why not view a soft Brexit as a “10-year waiting room”? This would provide space and time for both the country and parliament to reach a degree of consensus on whether to leave the EU in a more comprehensive way, or whether to ally ourselves more closely again or, if consensus cannot be reached, continue with the semi-detached status. Ten years would allow the political temperature to come down. I also cannot imagine the EU will fail to evolve over this period.

Big decisions, if they are to be widely accepted, need consensus. The 10-year mindset would be so much better for the country and allow a less tainted generation of politicians to emerge.

Robert Kirschen
Surrey

A narrowly won referendum was illegally funded and traded in untruths. How can this be as binding as the Europhobes insist? And why does nobody every consider that losing billions of EU regeneration and other grants, or coping with the mass unemployment that will be inevitably consequent upon the departures of Airbus, Toyota, BMW, Jaguar and others might be factors to be taken into consideration when the government contemplates the wisdom of implementing the result of an advisory and legally unsound plebiscite? The European Union Youth Orchestra is already leaving London for Italy. The language resorted to by the media does not bode well for we Remoaners.

Michael Rosenthal
Ferndale, Upper Brailes

You can’t always get what you want

In Wednesday’s Independent Hamish McRae talks about Mervin King’s contempt for the government’s Brexit planning to date. McRae quotes the Rolling Stones “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” as being a good analysis of what we can expect.

Personally, my fear is best summed up by the Who: “I’ll get on my knees and pray we don’t get fooled again”.

Bernard Cudd
Morpeth, Northumberland

Burberry and burning clothes

Peta and other animal advocates are celebrating the announcement that, after more than a decade of campaigns against Burberry’s use of fur, the iconic British brand has now joined Armani, Versace, Gucci, Ralph Lauren, Vivienne Westwood and Stella McCartney in banning fur from its collections.

This decision is a sign of the times, as today’s shoppers are seeing fur for what it is: the skin of animals who were caged and electrocuted or bludgeoned to death or caught in steel traps and often left to die slowly from blood loss – which is the way that coyotes are still being killed for the frivolous trim on Canada Goose’s jackets.

The few fashion houses refusing to modernise and listen to the overwhelming public opinion against fur are now sticking out like a sore thumb for all the wrong reasons. If they want to stay relevant in a changing industry, they have no choice but to stop using fur stolen from animals for their coats, collars, and cuffs.

Jennifer White, media and partnerships coordinator Peta UK
London, N1

Making misogyny a hate crime

I cannot help but feel that the government is looking at the problem of misogyny from the wrong end. Most misogyny is the result of outdated religious beliefs and the allowance of misogynistic policies in religious organisations, for instance, the battles women have had for equality of job status in the Church of England and Catholic Church, not to mention most other major faiths (how many female priests and imams are there?)

Therefore, before attempting to outlaw misogyny using criminal law, should not the government first strike at the root cause by extending the Equal Opportunities Act to include religious employers and religious teachings, introducing compulsory quotas for female religious leaders?

Ian McNicholas
Ebbw Vale

Why is everyone jumping ship at the BBC?

So, what IS happening at the BBC? A few months ago – in a published letter – I pointed out that prior to the collapse of House of Fraser the signs were there for anyone who cared to open their eyes. One of the main signs was in the signage itself. The one on Princes Street in Edinburgh had been in a state of disrepair for far too long.

Has anyone noticed that a couple of high profile, plump, white rats have left the luxury BBC cruise liner which floats on a sea of public money? One departed, apparently, to climb metaphorical mountains!

I do not believe in coincidences and I do not believe that dogs (or rats) bite the hand that feeds them with such extravagant morsels.

Amanda Baker
Edinburgh