Your leading article demonstrates precisely why I have been a long-term reader of the Observer (“The attack on the judges is shameful. It strikes at the very heart of our democracy”, Comment), but I have to take issue with one statement. You wrote: “No one disputes the result of the referendum”, but many most certainly do.
The Leave campaign was mis-sold by those who concentrated entirely on the immigration issue and not on the European Union. Arron Banks, who bankrolled the Leave.EU campaign, openly states: “We always knew that the referendum would come down to two things – the economy on the In side and immigration on the Out side and that if you could keep the subject on immigration you would win.” This worked for enough voters to make the result at the very least unsafe.
When the banks mis-sold PPI and other investments, it resulted in compensation for the victims and heavy fines for the perpetrators. Perversely, the mis-selling of the Leave case resulted in the opposite: rewards for those who did it and penalties for the victim – the Remain case. There is no case for accepting the 23 June result with all its consequences.
Michael Meadowcroft
Leeds
Are we happy with the already visible consequences of the Brexit referendum such as social division, racism, xenophobia, phoney nostalgia, isolationism, rising prices, falling living standards, declining tax revenues, institutional damage, lying and expert-free government?
This is one of those times when one might have been grateful for the British constitution, had it not been so misunderstood, undermined and traduced. Judges have clearly stated the law, as they are supposed to. It is unlikely that the House of Commons will do its job as well.
Do we look forward to a world once again dominated by populist myth-makers above the law? Does anyone – even those wearing poppies today – remember the last of the very many times when that happened in Europe?
Peter Robb
London N1
A general election would solve nothing and might even make the situation worse. What is now required is a second, very much shorter referendum campaign within six months to see whether the developments since 23 June have changed people’s minds.
The whole point of the referendum was to heal Conservative divisions. This remains Theresa May’s priority, which is why she is so keen to carry out Brexit before another general election, while Labour’s supine capitulation to the Brexiters’ aggressive rabble-rousing aims at regaining support lost to Ukip.
Both Labour and the Tories are placing party before country and risking the break-up of the union in the process. Neither is worthy of our support.
James C Robertson (Dr)
Tunbridge Wells
I had to chuckle when I read and considered the absurdity of the proposal by the Coventry City owning group, Sisu, to introduce a “text-a-substitute” scheme at Coventry City matches (Daniel Taylor’s column, Observer Sport, 6 November.)
It is hard to imagine that any other governing body (the elected government of the UK, for example) would be so naive and negligent as to pass the responsibility for making game-changing decisions to the underinformed, unqualified, opinionated (with the best of intentions) population, instead of requiring their paid managers, supported by appropriately qualified advisers to make and justify such decisions. On the other hand…
John Barlass
Warwick
