I HAVE been disappointed by the general tone on the Brexit debate (various letters, 27 April and 4 and 11 May).

Calling those who oppose your political views traitors is not the British way.

Furthermore, blaming all our problems on Europe is all very well, but I am old enough to remember that immigration and racism were issues well before we became a formal part of Europe. How the Windrush generation is being treated does not bode well for the future.

What gives greater cause for concern is the attacks by the Conservative Brexiteers and press on the Lords, yet when the coalition government tried to reform the House of Lords the same individuals wrecked it. Too often this seems to be guided by short-term opportunism, yet they cannot tell us where they want to take us apart from the generalities spoken by politicians on the back foot.

The reality is that over 690 days have elapsed since the referendum and we still have no idea of what Brexit and Leave is going to mean for us. If the politicians are confused, what hope for the public?

The Conservative party and government, which appears to have wrapped itself around the flag of Leave, has no clear idea of what version of Leave it wants. Disagreements in cabinet reflect splits in the wider party and there is still a strong Remain component.

Labour is in and is not in, Labour is out but is not out. The only certainty is that whatever Marxist solution Corbyn will offer will not work for us. The pro-Europe Liberal Democrats favour a People’s Vote where we as the public are actually allowed to vote on the final deal. I suspect it is a bit like buying a car or house; you need to look at all the facts, advantages and disadvantages of a deal before you sign on the dotted line.

Both our European referenda, Labour Harold Wilson’s in 1975 and Conservative David Cameron’s in 2016, were attempts by the ruling party to manage splits within their own parties. Many will argue that a referendum in British politics is ‘unconstitutional’ and an ‘alien device’ as we have a firm tradition of parliament as sovereign and supreme. However, we are where we are. By insisting on implementing the non-binding 2016 referendum without question, we are in danger of moving away from parliamentary government which is the British way. Parliament should be allowed to ask the difficult questions; otherwise why do we vote and pay for it? Unfortunately, once we start having referenda then we will end up having them for all things. The Swiss who have a different political tradition are much keener on government by referendum.

It may also explain why women did not get the vote in certain cantons until relatively recently.

My advice to anyone who is trying to work their way through the confusing mass of conflicting propaganda is simple. The role of government is to secure peace and deliver prosperity for its citizens.

My question would be does the deal on offer make us all safer and better off, or will it make us poorer and more vulnerable?

And no broken promises please.

Luigi Gregori, Charlton Road, Andover