THERE is a precedent for disregarding the democratic majority (Letters, July 19). This occurred in 1979 when the clear majority in favour of devolution for Scotland was set aside as not being sufficient to pass a pre-agreed percentage of the vote. The 52 per cent who voted for devolution gave way to the 48 per cent who voted against. It was an upside-down form of democracy but it was allowed to stand because, in that instance, it was ruled in advance not to accept a simple majority but to invest in the vote a notion of degree and performance. One person, one vote on the yes side counted for less than on the no.

Presumably the thinking then was that the voice of the people had to be loud and clear in its intention before departing from the norm.

In terms of Brexit might we not apply this reasoning retrospectively, and call time on a decision which was not loud and clear in its intention? This was a decision with profound consequences which began life as little more than the political contrivance of one man, now departed from the scene.

A Robertson,

5 Endfield Avenue,

Glasgow.

I AGREE with Dr Charles Wardrop (Letters, July 19) that it is "not too surprising" to see “Establishment” representatives attempt to reverse the democratic Brexit vote – apparently because they don't agree with the outcome, and thus exposing themselves to the charge of being pseudo-democrats (“Fresh call to halt Brexit”, The Herald, July 18 and Letters, July 18).

The EU project has laudable intentions (although, personally, I don't agree with its present route of ever-closer political union); indeed, to take one point, sometimes the problems supposedly stemming directly from EU rules actually stem from member states' interpretation of those rules.

On the same page Jim Meikle makes the fair point that democratic referendum results would be all the more acceptable with very clear-cut voting majorities either way; however, even his preference for 60 per cent or more would still have disgruntled zealots who didn't like the result, arguing that it wasn't the settled will of the people, in the manner of those now arguing for an EU referendum re-run because the majority might have made a mistake in voting for Brexit – but, if there then was a Remain vote, this too might be a mistake, using this logic.

The 2016 EU referendum vote was 51.9 per cent Leave to 48.1 per cent Remain; a slim majority, but a majority nevertheless; which leaves me speculating that, if this slim majority had been for Remain, the pseudo-democrats wouldn't now be crying foul.

Philip Adams,

7 Whirlie Road,

Crosslee,

Renfrewshire.

ALAN Fitzpatrick (Letters, July 19) fears that by re-opening the debate on leaving the EU we would weaken the Brexit negotiating team. If he can envisage them being weaker than they are at present, short of being carried to the negotiating table on stretchers, I envy him his powers of imagination.

Derrick McClure,

4 Rosehill Terrace,

Aberdeen.

THE trouble with the national, democratic vote to leave the European Union is that no terms for that departure were presented to the electorate. Supporters of Brexit quoted Norway and Switzerland as examples of countries not in the European Union which were both performing well and still had good relationships with the EU.

If the democratic will of the people who voted to leave the EU is to be respected the correct course of action would be to have a second referendum under a Single Transferable Vote system where the electorate are asked to determine on what basis we leave the European Union.

Sandy Gemmill,

40 Warriston Gardens,

Edinburgh.

AN eminently sensible letter (July 18) produced by the great and the good of Scotland calls for a halt to Brexit because of the damage it will do to our living standards and our entire way of life. But a new referendum would again ask a crude question, stirring up emotions not on the ballot paper, and those who ran the campaign of disinformation in 2016 are still with us. I think Brexit will happen: the momentum behind it is too great and with Article 50 activated and the European Communities Act 1972 soon to be repealed, we will march over the cliff.

We need to recognise that a “soft” Brexit is semantic nonsense and prepare ourselves for a greater economic and industrial dislocation than we saw in the Thatcherite 1980s. The quality and price of our services as well as our manufacturing and agricultural produce must be globally competitive – and that has severe implications for the public sector and the unions. Ironically it will also mean lifting the cap on immigration, for we need the planet's brightest and best to drive an economic and intellectual powerhouse.

Rev Dr John Cameron,

10 Howard Place,

St Andrews.

THE problem with Brexit is that on paper it was a very simple yes/no question and played to people's gut reactions, but the immediate and longer term implications of the result were unknown to most.

The number of lies told by both camps made the whole referendum undemocratic anyway in my view.

Willie Towers,

Victoria Road, Alford, Aberdeenshire.

THERE has recently been considerable correspondence recently about Brexit. I remember when the former Prime Minister Edward Heath took us into what was then the Common Market against much French opposition and was given the name “Grocer” Heath for his troubles. The French will be laughing now.

At present about half the population want to leave. I am writing to congratulate these leavers: they show a brave and altruistic part of Great Britain, indeed something that I have never really seen before.

They are to be praised and shown to be the real heroes of the day. After all, these noble and virtuous people are more than happy to embrace a very real drop in their standard of living, to place their jobs at risk even, to substantially reduce their levels of health care, social care and nutrition (as our farming industry collapses). As George Galloway once said to Saddam Hussein, I salute their indefatigability.

James Evans

112 Highmains Avenue, Dumbarton.