DURING the referendum campaign, many lies were told, some blatant, some only recognised later, but two major ones are still being spouted daily and seem to have taken an iron grip, exactly as suits the proponents, on the national consciousness. These relate to democracy and the will of the people.

Anent democracy, we are constantly fed the line that to have a second vote on the subject of EU membership is undemocratic as we already voted decisively only two and a half years ago. But what of the right to change one’s mind? Consider Theresa May herself. First, she supported Remain, but now doggedly supports Leave. Secondly, the law decreed a parliamentary election result was for five years, before people could change their minds. Mrs May, however, after two years, ignored that and called a snap election, hoping that voters would have changed their minds and give her a bigger majority. Now she insists that two years is far too soon to allow the electorate to change their minds. Perhaps goose and gander are relevant here.

Anent “the will of the people”, a phrase that infuriates me every time I hear it, I’d like to ask “which people”? Surely in a democracy, on a matter of such critical importance, “the people” are all adults who reside here, contribute to the economy by working, pay their taxes to fund services and will live with the result of the vote for the rest of their lives? That may be the normal electorate, but in the EU referendum several million EU spouses, family and long-term resident workers were deliberately removed from the eligible roll. A huge number have given years to this country, in some cases 30 to 40 years, and may live with the consequences of the vote for as long again. But they were not allowed to vote in the referendum, and now must register for permission to be second-class citizens.

Furthermore, the Leave vote represented only 37.44 per cent of the electorate. The margin by which Leave won was very slightly less than that for devolution in 1979, a margin which was considered too small to represent the will of the people. Let us not forget, too, the generation of young folk excluded, old enough to work, pay tax, get married and join the military, whose whole adult lives will be affected.

The will of the people? Democratic? I think not. Let us remember “no taxation without representation” and kill these lies stone dead.

L McGregor,

Gartcows Road, Falkirk.

THE catastrophic handling of Brexit highlights to what extent our political process is now mired in the mud.

Theresa May has suffered no fewer than 27 Commons defeats, 10 of them in connection with Brexit. In no previous era of British politics could such a calamitous prime minister have survived such a weight of defeats, including the humiliating historic loss she recently suffered over the Withdrawal Agreement.

In the past, losing a vote of confidence on a key piece of legislation was considered sufficient to stand down. For example, having split his party over the Corn Laws in 1846, Sir Robert Peel resigned as prime minister after the defeat of his Irish Coercion Bill. Gladstone was also forced to resign in 1885, again after a defeat on the Irish issue.

In terms of the modern era, four prime ministers resigned and four stepped down on alleged grounds of ill-health. Indeed, two quit office even after winning key votes because their margins of victory made them seem moral defeats. Neville Chamberlain resigned in May 1940, despite having won the division on the disastrous Norway campaign, and Margaret Thatcher famously resigned despite her victory over Michael Heseltine in the first round of a Tory leadership contest.

Realising the game was up, even David Cameron resigned after losing the Brexit referendum.

It is a damning indictment of Mrs May and her party that she can even contemplate staying in office. The French philosopher and diplomat, Joseph de Maistre famously said: “In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve.” I disagree, we deserve so much better than this humiliating shambles.

Alex Orr,

Flat 3, 2 Marchmont Road, Edinburgh.

THOUGH Northern Ireland Secretary, Karen Bradley, is adamant that there is no link between the recent unrest in Derry and the Brexit process, she is guilty of underplaying the threat this poses to the short and long term security of the country she represents at Westminster ("Leaders try to restore calm to Derry after mad 3 days", The Herald, January 23).

Our current Brexit impasse continues to distress many individuals and communities throughout the UK and nowhere more so than Northern Ireland. The uncertainty that permeates our economic and political system at present, allied to the fact that the people of Northern Ireland have been without a devolved assembly at Stormont for more than two years, provides an opportune climate that dissident factions, such as the New IRA, will exploit for their own ends.

Transport and postal services have been suspended to some Republican areas of Derry as fears of terrorist violence and disruption continue to grow. Mark Hamilton, Assistant Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), views the current terrorist attacks as "the most significant in recent years". Yet Ms Bradley would have us believe that the present political climate in the UK, with the possibility of a no- deal Brexit and therefore a hard border in Ireland, does not influence the recklessness of terrorists and their ability to drag Northern Ireland back to sectarian violence and chaos.

A recent Amorach poll in the Irish republic found that 65 percent of people asked would fear a return to violence in Ireland following Brexit. It is now more than 20 years since the Good Friday Agreement brought comparative stability to Northern Ireland, in which time there has been undoubted economic progress and changes in social, if not political attitudes. The Troubles witnessed more than 3,500 deaths in Northern Ireland yet the passage of time seems to blind many politicians and parties of the appalling price in human lives that could be paid if there is no orderly and transparently clear plan for Britain exiting the EU.

Neither the British nor the Irish Governments appear, even at this perilously late stage in proceedings, to possess a contingency plan in the event of a no-deal Brexit, a somewhat disconcerting, if not downright alarming, state of affairs.

I cannot help wondering how politicians and the press would view a similar situation if transplanted to the British mainland.

Owen Kelly,

8 Dunvegan Drive, Stirling.

I ACKNOWLEDGE that passions run high over Brexit and that it is wise to have contingency plans in place, but are the dire predictions of widespread civil unrest and a breakdown of law and order in the event of a No-deal or a second referendum by senior politicians of different factions deliberately overstated and alarmist, and could they be counter-productive ("Lucas: No-deal Brexit may collapse law and order”, The Herald, January 23)?

R Russell Smith,

96 Milton Road, Kilbirnie.

Read more: Irish border backstop 'would constrain UK negotiating position'