Three-optionpublicvote

Dear Editor,

Now that we are fully aware of Theresa May’s Brexit deal and it lurches towards inevitable defeat in the House of Commons, one of the few options left on the table to address the resulting impasse is that of a public vote.

The question to be put to the electorate is fairly straightforward – support the deal, leave the EU with no deal or remain within the EU.

These remarks will draw ire about the

potential confusion caused by a multioption referendum on the UK’s future relationship. Multi-option referendums on constitutional change, however, are not unusual and have been undertaken in a number of places.

For example, Newfoundland, then a British colony, held a three- option referendum in 1948 to decide whether it should enter the Canadian Confederation, remain under British rule or regain independence.

The eventual decision by Newfoundlanders was to enter the Canadian Confederation.

Ironically, while originally it was deemed there should only be two options on the ballot paper, the British Government intervened and overruled the convention (the body established to decide on Newfoundland’s constitutional future) and decided that confederation with Canada should also be on the ballot paper.

Indeed, in other parts of the world for example, in Switzerland multioption referendums are a common occurrence.

Most political questions are multioptional and while the politicians have had the opportunity to deal with Brexit and failed, the people must now be given the chance to plot the way ahead. Alex Orr, via email