AT last I can take it no more. Dr Gerald Edwards (Letters, December 18), makes many statements regarding the Brexit referendum without providing any evidence to support them. As space and time are limited, I will restrict my comments to one, frequently repeated, claim namely Dr Edwards’s “binding vote of the UK electorate as a whole” and provide publicly available evidence in support of the fact that (a) the referendum was not binding and (b) that the membership of the UK electorate was deliberately restricted by excluding certain groups from voting before the Referendum Bill was introduced in Parliament.

(a) Parliamentary Briefing Paper number 07212 was published on June 3, 2015 making it clear to all MPs and members of the House of Lords that the referendum was advisory only and would not be binding on Parliament or government. This was reiterated in mid-June (see Hansard for June 16, 2015) in the House by the then Minister for Europe, David Lidington, currently frequently described as the Prime Minister’s deputy. Section 5 of paper 07212 states that the referendum is non-binding, advisory and consultative while section 6 says that if there were to be any suggestion otherwise (i.e., if the result were to be binding) there would need to be a “supermajority” requirement, for example 60 per cent or 66 per cent of the entire electorate or of the votes cast, as required in civilised democratic advanced states. Mr Lidington on the occasion of the debate covered in Hansard uttered the following statement: “The legislation is about holding a vote; it makes no provision for what follows. The referendum is advisory.”

(b) The reference to the “UK electorate” is grossly misleading. Millions (some estimates put it as high as 32 million) of voters were, in fact, disenfranchised – EU citizens resident and paying their taxes in the UK (shades of the Boston Tea Party); expatriate Brits who had lived abroad for more than a certain number of years and 16-17 year olds – those whose future was most in jeopardy from a misjudged decision. Thus, only 37 per cent of those allowed to exercise the franchise on this occasion, or 26 per cent of “the people” actually voted Leave. It might be added that, if the three devolved nations of the UK had been in a position to vote as individual EU members, their opinions would have carried vastly more weight than they do in a union dominated by the single largest member by population.

Those interested in checking my facts, who may include Dr Edwards, can refer to Hansard for June 3 & 16 2015 and to various publications by professor A C Grayling of New College of the Humanities in London. His Democracy and Its Crisis in its third reprint has a useful Appendix on Brexit and unhesitatingly refers to gerrymandering of the EU referendum by one side in particular. This period in our constitutional history will go down as an infamous one, in my view: I am not and never have been a member of any political party but have studied our constitutional history for some 60 years.

Alexander McQuarrie,

c/o 9 Armadale Crescent, Perth.

I AM disappointed and surprised that Theresa May genuinely believes that somehow she can convince Parliament to accept the current withdrawal agreement on offer to her by the European Union.

The legally binding document of 578 pages concerning the withdrawal agreement is a bad deal for both the UK as a whole and Northern Ireland in particular. It does not honour the referendum result nor the pledges in the Conservative manifesto of 2017 nor the prime minister’s Lancaster House and Florence speeches.

The fact that there is a land border between Northern Ireland and the EU has been raised as the sticking point in negotiations. They maintain that in order to prevent a hard border when the UK leaves the EU then some form of link to the customs union, the single market and European regulations must apply to Northern Ireland. This has the effect of separating them from the UK thus risking the breakup of the Union with both NI then Scotland going their separate ways. Many of the people in Northern Ireland tenaciously fought terrorism suffering countless deaths in order to protect the Union. They will therefore strenuously resist this agreement and certainly not bow down to the whims of a group of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

The agreement also begs the question what is a hard border. There are 360 road crossings between the north and the south and during the troubles border patrols, watch towers, concrete bollards and 50,000 troops could not prevent cattle, cigarettes, alcohol, guns and bombs crossing the border. So there lays the conundrum that the EU has imposed upon us by the so called back stop arrangement.

The solution is staring us in the face. Currently we have solved the issue between Northern Ireland and the Republic of having different VA , excise duty and corporation tax rates and even different currencies. Diageo (my former company) brews Guinness in the Republic and bottles it in Northern Ireland. They make Baileys in Belfast and sell it in the Republic. Diageo accounts for 16,000 vehicle movements across the border every year. They simply provide notification of moving goods and the duty is collected at the different rates every three months. The temptation to avoid tax is obviated by severe penalties and loss of “trusted status.”

In essence frictionless trade is perfectly possible by some form filling at the point of origin, not the border. This applies to trade as well as regulatory conformity in respect of health and safety standards, agricultural regulations etc. as the EU already trades with the USA, China, Japan and many other countries who do not have the same standards but have no problems exchanging goods and services.

It would appear that all the red herrings raised by the EU are designed to prevent us from leaving an institution to which they wish us to remain especially since, according to the House of Commons library, we have made £300 million in net contributions since we joined.

Christopher H Jones,

25 Ruthven Avenue, Giffnock.

IT is clear to many that the membership deal which the UK has with the EU is better than a negotiated deal could be and my hope for 2019 is that responsible representatives from all parties at Westminster will Christmas carol with “The party’s over. It’s time to call Brexit a day”, and that we will be spared a visit from the Ghost of EU Past this time next year.

R Russell Smith,

96 Milton Road, Kilbirnie.

WAS it or was it not Winston Churchill’s advice to a new prospective MP: “Remember, you stand, to sit, to lie”?

George Murray,

113 Dundonald Road, Troon.