Response to Brexit letters

I read three pro-brexit letters in your September 12 edition that demand a response.

In the first, written by Kenneth Newby of Bosham, he is simply wrong in saying the 2016 referendum was not advisory. It was clearly stated in the bill that enabled it that it was advisory. The fact that promises were made by the Conservative Government of the day to implement the result and that a large majority of Conservative and Labour MPS voted to trigger ‘Article 50’, does not change the legal status of the referendum itself.

In addition, one Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments from overturning decisions that it has made, by changing the law when necessary, so the current Parliament is perfectly entitled to take a different view from the last.

Next, a letter from John Hutchings of Chichester.

The current EU Withdrawal Agreement was negotiated over a period of 18 months when Theresa May was Prime Minister and was written by both sides, not just by the EU as he asserts.

The so-called Northern Ireland Backstop was put in at the insistence of the UK Government, after the DUP vetoed the EU’S proposals for dealing with this issue.

Our MP Gillian Keegan stated in a public meeting last November, soon after it was published, that she had read the document and she supports it. Whilst I am no fan of the EU Withdrawal Agreement, it is infinitely preferable to leaving the EU with no deal at all. If Theresa May had only coupled her deal with a confirmatory referendum, she would have got it through Parliament at