Jeff Walshe makes some important points in his letter on referendums (bit.ly/2Ogzlh3). Yes, referendums are highly problematic and flawed – but so is representative democracy!

David Cameron’s referendum means we are where we are; and anyone who witnessed the audience nearly coming to blows on BBC’s Question Time on March 14 will surely realise that we urgently need a solution to Brexit that does full justice to the closeness of the 2016 result and to the strong emotions on both sides, and which helps to heal our tragically divided nation.

Here’s one workable proposal for doing just that.

(1) The Commons first formally affirms the result of the 2016 EU referendum – that the Leave vote currently stands, and should be respected and honoured.

(2) A new referendum (with clear choices offered) is held which is strictly advisory, with all options on the ballot paper – i.e. Remain, Theresa May’s Deal, a Labour deal proposal, or Leave with no deal; and people can vote by preference if they prefer (1,2,3,4). This possibly complex result will then be interpreted as objectively as possible by an appointed independent body.

(3) Results will be published for each individual constituency, so that MPs know the view of their constituents and will be honour-bound to faithfully represent their constituents’ decision in future Commons votes.

(4) All future Brexit Commons votes will be free and unwhipped.

(5) If the result of the second referendum is very close like the first one (say, 54/46 or closer, either way), the 2016 referendum result will be upheld and honoured.

(6) If there’s a substantial majority for Remain in the second referendum, the first referendum result can be overturned, with the agreement of a free vote of MPs.

(7) Conservative and Labour Parties must agree before the second referendum is held that they will work together to honour the procedure set out above.

Such a procedure would mean that all sides are honoured and respected. Specifically: the 2016 referendum result would not necessarily be overturned by a second referendum unless there were a dramatic shift of opinion towards Remain; and both Remain and Brexit supporters will also again have the opportunity to take their case to the country, and be heard.

Only a procedure on these lines offers any hope of saving the country splitting asunder, with the attendant social unrest that could ensue if either side were to feel ignored and their concerns sidelined.

All politicians have a grave responsibility to do everything possible to ensure that this national schism doesn’t happen – and the above scenario, or something like it, is surely the best way of avoiding it.

Dr Richard House

Stroud