MADAM,

Gareth Dunn answering my letter, (‘Must be another vote,’ 1st February) must know that it is unlikely that any EU deal can be done in less than two years, once Article 50 has been invoked this March.

My point was clearly that when the terms are published, then at that time probably two years on, a second referendum should take place as to whether it is acceptable or not? What is unreasonable about that? Would you vote to change your house or your car ’blind’, without knowing what you would get paid and what you might be be able to replace it with?

As 48 per cent voted against the whole idea of leaving the EU, we are well aware that the close result of the ’Yes/ No’ referendum was in favour of leaving, but we cannot know what we’ve got as a result, until negotiations are completed. It was surely clear that the second referendum I and others are calling for, relates to that time, before signatures are appended to treaties, perhaps two years on. 

If the terms show the nation would clearly be better off, then his ’Leave’ vote should prevail by a big majority. If it cannot, then why are we even considering leaving? Surely not to be worse off and in the process be voting for the break-up of the United Kingdom, since Scotland following its strong Remain vote, continues to refuse abandoning EU membership. That is a strong possibility and was not known to UK voters in last years referendum. If you believe referenda are a good way to make such great decisions, why then oppose consulting the people on something as important as this?

The outcome, the proposed deal will be central to theirs and their children’s future. Why then should we citizens be expected to ’buy a pig in a poke’?

Clive Lindley

(Monmouth)