Results of EU membership referendum should not have been allowed to stand

Tim Flinn (Letters, 22 March) expressed concern about British democracy. Even allowing for the wonderful flexibility of the word “democracy”, no sincere interpretation of it could possibly encompass the Brexit referendum.

When our elected representatives evaded their responsibility for making decisions in favour of party manoeuvrings, they presented an enormously complex issue to the public as a simple binary choice. Understanding the implications of the decision has evaded the combined resources of parliament and the civil service for more than two years but every voter was assumed to know exactly what they were voting for. Despite the fact many of the parochial London journals that masquerade as national newspapers had circulated many lies, and that the Electoral Commission found that the financing of the Leave campaign was illegal, the referendum was allowed to stand.

Many observers noted that the cunningham amendment, which had been applied to the first referendum about the Scotland Act, required the majority to be greater than 40 per cent of the registered electorate because it concerned an important constitutional change. No such limit was imposed on the much more far-reaching Brexit vote so, when 37.4 per cent of the electorate voted to leave the EU, the result was laughably described as “the will of the people”. This disgraceful event should have been declare null and void long ago.

PETER M DRYBURGH Falcon Avenue, Edinburgh

Tim Flinn hits the Brexit nail on the head, in wishing the Government had responded positively to the result of the Leave/remain in the EU referendum in 2016, doing the “decent, democratic thing and voted to honour its result and expedite Brexit” at that time.

In 1972, the Swiss public referendum, on their proposed Common Market membership, won by “No” with a margin of 0.6 per cent, was honoured by their government. Since then, Swiss-eu trade deals maintain mutual trust. Our 2016 UK referendum margin for Brexit, about 4 per cent, is evidently now being dishonoured by Parliamentary Remainers. Remainers claiming primacy for decisions of Parliament on such a constitutional issue are wrong, since the electors surely are properly accorded that ultimate responsibility, if our democracy is not to be violated. (DR) CHARLES WARDROP Viewlands Road West, Perth