I USUALLY find myself agreeing with Vic Barlow, but our views on Brexit diverge slightly.

Although we’re both Remainers, I strongly believe that the only way forward (apart from a no-deal exit, which the polls say most people don’t want) is through another referendum. 

Yes I would hope that the result might be different but even if the outcome were the same, at least people would have a better idea what they’re voting for.  

The 2016 referendum was a simple choice, in or out.  Did it tell us how we might leave and under what circumstances? No it didn’t.  

Did it tell us that the deal the UK government would spend two years hammering out with the EU would be rejected by parliament four times? No it didn’t.  

Did it forecast that, having rejected that proposal, parliament would have 13 goes at producing a deal of its own - and fail?  Did it hint that our politics would be in complete chaos for three years, trying to figure it out? No it didn’t. 

Assuming Boris Johnson is our next PM, (oh dear) what are the chances of him getting a different deal with the EU to the one that has taken so long to finalise? Close to zero.  

If it’s similar to Theresa May’s deal, parliament will reject it. 

If he wants to pursue a no-deal solution, parliament will reject that too.

If parliament is failing to decide the way forward, the only alternative is to let the electorate decide.

The Brexit deal on offer v Remain.

We have a general election every five years. Sometimes people change their minds after they’ve seen what the governing party has done, sometimes the governing party gets an increased vote.

What on earth is wrong with applying the same principle to Brexit?

Geoff Holman