Impressed with MPs’ stand on May deal

IN his letter of September 4, Roger Gough gave a careful account of how the referendum was designed in 2015, including the scrutiny that it received from MPs.

He did not however mention that it was, and still is, advisory and that this explains why a simple majority was accepted rather than a supermajority of over 60%.

However, a key link was missing from the argument in the letter.

No matter how good the initial design, the final outcome could only ever be as good as the way the referendum was actually conducted.

The UK is one of some 60 signatories to the Venice Commission on the conduct of referendums. In 2016 we did not keep to its guidelines in two important respects.

1. The government of the day failed in its duty to publicise its advisory nature so that most people did not know what they were voting for. Many incorrectly thought it was binding.

2. There were serious financial irregularities in the Leave campaigns so that the result should have been annulled.

It is believed that this action was not taken because the vote was advisory and not binding.

There was of course also serious and deliberate misinformation, like the totally false claim that the NHS would benefit by £350 million per week if we left the EU.

So all the careful planning that went into the referendum was negated by its inadequate, dishonest and at times corrupt implementation. The outcome cannot be accepted at face value.

One thing that did go right was the action of MPs. The next stage after an advisory referendum is for a detailed plan to be drawn up, discussed and voted on.

This took the form of Theresa

May’s deal with the EU; the requirement was for it to be debated in parliament and then the subject of meaningful vote.

MPs carried out their duty to check carefully through the long document, and on three separate occasions declared it not to be in the national interest.

We owe many of them a debt of gratitude for their diligence and devotion to duty.

Roger Porkess Totnes, Devon