The EU referendum (Report, 24 June), far from determining the settled will of the British people, has only served to show how divided we have become. We are divided between our constituent nations, regions, cities and generations. Undoubtedly many voters cast their vote according to which side’s scare stories, lies, insinuations and threats they believed. This was no way for a mature democracy to decide the future of its people’s relationship with the outside world.
What is needed over the next few months and years is not a lurching change in leadership or government. The people now need the opportunity to fully consider not only our future relationship with the EU but also with each other. The government should set up a constitutional convention involving all political parties, civic groups etc, to calmly consider the way forward. It should be capable of thinking the unthinkable, such as asking whether Northern Ireland and Scotland could have a different settlement with the EU to that of England and Wales. It should also look at how these islands can heal the wounds of division brought about by the establishment’s using the issues of Europe, immigration and austerity for narrow political gain.
Noel Nowosielski
Pudsey, West Yorkshire
• The referendum result needs to be seen for the opportunity it is. It is the starting point of the UK’s leaving of the EU. The Conservative party cannot speak on behalf of a divided union. Whoever is elected as leader will be unable to reconcile the deep divisions within the party. The only democratic way forward is for a cross-party team to be given a mandate to undertake negotiations. It is up to our MPs to hold them to account. The role of opposition MPs, and Labour MPs in particular, in the next two years will be crucial. They must be vigilant in ensuring the best of the EU remains enshrined within the UK’s laws.
Ian Hamilton
London
• The referendum acts as guidance to parliament which now has to decide what action to take. Commons representatives have to make up their own minds, they are not delegates who are mandated by their organisations. Parliament has to protect the greater interests of the country. The government has long emphasised that, it does not consider a majority vote valid if it is less than 40% of the eligible electorate, when it is union members voting for a temporary public sector strike. Given that an EU exit is far more important and permanent, how will MPs justify treating the 37.4% of the vote to leave as sufficient, especially when the majority is so small and significantly composed of old people who won’t be affected by the outcome?
Professor John Veit-Wilson
Newcastle upon Tyne
• Deborah Orr (Ten things we learned about ourselves from this vote, 24 June) rightly identifies our dysfunctional political system as a key factor in the vote. Our political parties have colluded in the construction of a winner takes all system where governments elected by a minority can inflict ideological destruction on public services and punish the poor and where self-selected cabinets at local level can ride roughshod over residents’ concerns. In such a system there are always more losers than winners.
Richard Gilyead
Saffron Walden, Essex
• So, a government with a minority of the election vote imposes a referendum to appease a relatively small number of its backbenchers. The result is a very small margin in favour of leaving. The result? A fundamental constitutional change. That just would not happen in states with entrenched constitutional provisions that generally require bigger margins for such a massive change. Give us a written constitution before Farage suggests putting hanging to the vote.
Greg Purnell
London
• How interesting that only rightwing politicians from France and the Netherlands have reacted positively. Will all our MEPs now resign or will they continue to gain their huge salaries and expenses. Surely those who voted leave must go now.
Chris Gregory
Southport, Lancashire
• Here we go again: “Britain has voted by a substantial margin to leave the European Union” (Full results and analysis, 24 June, theguardian.com). Is what was a 3.9 percentage point majority “substantial”? This is reminiscent of another marginal victory, in the last general election, which was again small (if not negative) but treated by the winners as a landslide of North Korean proportions. This demonstrates the main defect of the first past the post/winner takes all system. When 16 million people vote one way and 17 million the other, does it not require the majority to look for some degree of compromise (like the promised devo max of the Scottish referendum), rather than act exclusively in the interests of the 51.8% that voted their way?
Michael Peel
Winscombe, Somerset
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
