The idea that it would take a year to organise a referendum is patent drivel

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

It was striking to note that according to Downing Street it will take more than a year to organise another EU referendum.

This is of course an attempt to undermine the call by the People’s Vote campaign for such a plebiscite and is total and utter nonsense

It would be perfectly possible to organise a referendum to take place in much shorter order, without trampling on constitutional and practical requirements.

Indeed, the first EU referendum was called in February 2016 and the vote itself took place in June 2016, a mere four months – even if the process did begin months earlier when David Cameron announced there would be a vote. The referendum to establish the Scottish parliament was held in September 1997 following the election of the Labour Party in May that year, again four months.

Further afield, Greece’s referendum to decide whether that nation should accept the bailout in the government-debt crisis was announced on 27 June 2015, with the referendum taking place on 5 July.

While a week to hold a vote, as was the case with Greece, may be a little over-ambitious, the idea that another EU referendum would take more than a year to organise is patent drivel.

Alex Orr
Edinburgh

We have played our cards too close to our chest with Brexit

It is perplexing that the May government is considering the no-deal Brexit scenario as one of its best cards. No wonder little progress has been made on substantial issues.

This was the case in September 2017 and it remains so in January 2019. This could be attributed to the British tactical approach of placing their cards close to their chest, providing as little information as possible about their position and arguing that putting such information in the public domain would undermine their negotiating stance. It is time for a fresh mindset that puts citizens and their inviolable human rights as a key priority for humankind as a whole.

Dr Munjed Farid Al Qutob
London NW2

What actually is the government’s stance on Brexit?

The backstop is not the problem but a symptom of the problem, namely what type of arrangement the UK wants with the EU. All the backstop does is buy some time.

From the instigation of Article 50, the Lancaster House speech, the Chequers deal and now the political declaration, the UK government has failed to articulate precisely the shape of the arrangement it wants: not Norway-plus, not Canada-plus, not a customs union. So what is it?

Throwing the question back to the people in such a chaos is not going to get informed consent, simply a decision based on emotion and ignorance. What is clear is that it will be less than we have at the moment.

Maurizio Moore
Brentwood

Leaving the EU is anything but clear

In yesterday’s Letters page, Simon Watson says voters “now have a crystal clear vision of what exiting the EU means”. I’d be awfully grateful if he’d describe this sparklingly clear vision, as I’m rather more inclined to believe that the vision, after all the bickering and contradictions from left, right and centre, is as clear as mud.

Penny Little
Great Haseley

Thanks, Phil

I think the nation owes Prince Philip a debt of gratitude for single-handedly changing the news agenda away from its tedious obsession with Brexit.

Rev Dr John Cameron
St Andrews

Don’t forget about David Cameron

It seems to me that Robert Boston (Letters, 19 January) is too hard on Lord North; he merely “lost the American Colonies”.

David “Quitter” Cameron is far worse; he may well have started the breakup of the United Kingdom itself. Cameron’s lucky break was being quickly surpassed by Theresa Mayhem.

Cameron at least pretended to listen.

Peter Scott
Sheffield