A SECOND Brexit referendum might well contribute to stabilising the country, apart from some disruptive Tories and Ukip zealots.

Two years since June 2016 the public are now having a chance to see what lies ahead if Brexit happens. When virtually every section of the country has given its gloomy forecast on the likely outcome for them and the industries or areas they represent, it is essential the public be given an opportunity to cast their considered votes which must contain the option to remain in the EU under the same rules as before. Anything less would be a true betrayal of democracy. This is far too important an issue not to be reconsidered by everyone in the light of evidence. If the Government is confident with its Leave position it should be happy to have it endorsed by the people. If the Remain side should prevail in the outcome then the Government will feel justified in revealing an informed will of the people.

It is always advisable to listen to the views of those not involved in politics. Politicians in the main are known to be mendacious and have their own careers at the forefront of their minds rather than the good of the nation or their constituents. The non-political Governor of the Bank of England, and his predecessor have been pretty clear in their views of the future and they reflect the opinions of most senior ex-politicians and commentators. The general conclusion seems to be that staying in the EU is the best solution and the best deal for Britain.

There are very few tangible reasons why leaving the EU is a good idea. Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Liam Fox, Nigel Farage and others have gone a bit silent of late, thankfully, but they along with one or two other hard-line Tories promise endless benefits and wonderful deals with the rest of the world, all expressed in fairytale language. However, they still never provide any solid substance to their vacuous predictions.

Nigel Dewar Gibb,

15 Kirklee Road, Glasgow.

DAVID Cameron came back from Brussels with nothing. Theresa May has come back from Brussels with nothing. As politicians argue over Brexit it is really clear there is no truly viable solution coming from Brussels then or now. Brexit must go ahead without a second referendum, so the choice now narrows to Mrs May's somewhat questionable deal or the terribly obvious other option of a clean break. These are the only options that honour the binding vote of the UK electorate as a whole.

Politicians have therefore to make up their minds and stop muddying the waters in order to promote their own personal electoral agendas. No one was ever left in any doubt from the start that Brexit meant Brexit.

Dr Gerald Edwards,

Broom Road, Glasgow.

IN Iain AD Mann's letter today (December 18), I misread the words "a final decisive referendum" as "a final divisive referendum".

Another referendum would produce more division, and what would the question(s) be?

David Miller,

80 Prestonfield, Milngavie.

THE multiple-choice format suggested by Thom Cross in his postal vote proposal (Letters, December 17) has an inbuilt bias for Remain by splitting the Leave vote into three separate vote choices against a single vote choice for Remain. Apart from the obvious unfairness of that, should Remain gain more votes than any of the Leave choices, what would be considered an acceptable result if the total of the votes for the three Leave choices was greater than the votes for Remain, which it could be argued was in effect the result of the 2016 referendum?

Alan Fitzpatrick,

10 Solomon’s View, Dunlop.

ONE of the reasons for Brexit is that the Brexiters wanted the UK to be a sovereign independent country again. Why is Theresa May going around individual EU countries when she does not believe they are sovereign or independent countries?

Grace Kerr,

56 Sandyknowes Road, Cumbernauld.