Theresa May may have ruled it out, but this is what a second referendum could look like

Send your letters in to letters@independent.co.uk

Many in Britain are anguishing over whether or not there should be a second Brexit referendum. If so, would it be democratic? If not, does the majority of the population really want to proceed – bearing in mind what they now understand, and what they have seen unfold since the 2016 Referendum?

Clearly, both views have validity.

Democracy, as we have come to experience it, has led us into the complexity of Brexit, giving what has now become a seemingly impossible task to our politicians and civil servants.

A democratic, simple and clear way forward would be provided by a further referendum with one simple question calling for a “Yes/No” answer, that question being: “Should there be a second referendum on Britain leaving the European Union?”

Such a referendum would need no campaigning and could be held at the shortest possible notice.

If the referendum were to result in a “No” vote, that would give clarity, certainty and authority to our politicians and those negotiating on our behalf, which would, no doubt, make them more effective in their respective roles.

If the referendum were to result in a “Yes” vote, that would give a clear direction to our politicians, one that would indicate the likelihood of democratic favour in EU negotiations leaning towards Britain remaining, possibly giving more leverage to negotiate towards beneficial EU reform. It would also encourage the EU to allow Britain the space and time we need to prepare for the subsequent Brexit referendum two.

Either way, the outcome would give our country clarity with a better chance of unity behind whatever the democratic decision may be. That can only be good for us all.

Whoever thinks that this idea has merit should do what they can to promote it. Our country needs clarity and unity and has no time to prevaricate.

Nigel Grainge
Exeter

There is one omission from your Final Say campaign which could render its result unacceptable to a majority of the population: you fail to propose the question(s) to be asked.

If the government fails to reach an agreement, then there are three possibilities – remain, take a longer time to reach an agreement, or leave with no deal. If some agreement is reached then again there are three possibilities – remain, leave with the agreed deal, or leave with no deal.

If presented with either of these three options in a referendum, using a simple majority with each voter only asked to choose a single option, the result could be completely skewed. It is possible that the middle option in each case (more time or the agreed deal), would be squeezed out by those who want to remain or to leave, despite this probably being the least unpopular choice.

For similar reasons, using a form of proportional representation such as single transferable vote, where voters are asked to rank their choices first, second and third, could again result in the middle option receiving the least first preference votes and being discarded with its votes being transferred to its second preferences, despite the probability that almost everyone’s second preference would be for this option.

This all arises because there would in both cases be two options for leave but only one for remain. Whether the public now wishes to leave or to remain therefore needs to be established first.

One way around this would be for each voter to have two votes. The first would determine whether we should leave or remain. The second, asked at the same time so as not to delay a result, would ask that if the result of the first vote is to leave, then should this be with no deal or the middle option (more time to negotiate or the agreed deal respectively). In this way, a true reflection of whether the public now wishes to leave or remain would be established and then under what circumstances.

Paul Griew
Devon

Theresa May’s stubbornness prevails

So the PM won’t be pushed around and there will be no changes to her Chequer’s plan.

What happened to negotiation and compromise? May appears to be very focused on her plan, however, as a member of the voting public, I wish she would listen to others.

Frank Sole
Cranleigh

International organisations aren’t failing refugees like Alan Kurdi

Katy Fallon is right to reflect on the plight of child refugees who had been cruelly abandoned in Europe. Several countries are still reeling from the adverse impacts of the refugee crisis on public health, education, ecology compounded by the grinding reality of austere measures.

Refugees encounter insurmountable pressures from despair, mistrust, populism and nationalism, to challenges in accessing public health services. However, one must also acknowledge the work done by international organisations such as the WHO, UNHCR and UNRWA in mitigating the sheer vulnerability of refugees, alleviating poverty and offering essential services.

The benevolence of countries like Jordan and Lebanon, not signatories to the 1951 UN refugee convention, must also be acknowledged and appreciated. They received biblical number of refugees and remain oases of tolerance, religious freedom, harmony, coexistence, openness and peace in the midst of religious, political and social turbulence regionally and globally. We can only succeed in averting this deepening humanitarian crisis from unfolding by assisting host countries, international organisations and charities at the front line of serving refugees.

Dr Munjed Farid Al Qutob
London NW2

The arms trade in schools

School authorities, parents and students should be advised that there is an alternative perspective to that peddled by the barbarous defence/war industry to promote their brands in schools.

The arms trade is an inefficient use of vast resources manufacturing harmful products. The manufacturer's balance sheet and the country's GDP state it is profitable. Measured in money, the value of adverse production is calculated to be equal to prosperous production.

A problem of economics deeming all production to be wealth creation and of positive value, even when contrary to the (international) common good.

Arguably, because of the absence of any benefit for the target/human life/civilisation/environment, the manufacturing process is destroying existing wealth and, in so doing, devaluing the money used as the measure.

The arms trade is negative value production that adversely impacts on international currencies as well as life, living standards and the natural world.

Geoff Naylor
Winchester

A second referendum in Scotland

Today you published an article in which Jacob Rees-Mogg resolved that Scotland is not entitled to a second independence referendum for another 20 years.

Rees-Mogg is a backbench English MP with no connection to Scotland. He has no role and no responsibility for Scotland, and nor have I. Somehow I think that you would not have solicited my views on Scottish independence, and nor should you pay any attention to Rees-Mogg.

Who does this arrogant man think he is? He receives publicity that is out of all proportion to his relevance and importance, and he deserves to be left in obscurity where he belongs.

Sam Boote
Nottingham