HAVING read the letter from Jean Robinson (Letters, September 26, 'People's vote is only way), my response is as follows:

I am appalled at her suggestion we should dishonour the result of the 2016 referendum - the greatest democratic test of public opinion ever held in the United Kingdom.

The Government gave an unequivocal, binding commitment to abide by the decision of the electorate, a promise endorsed by the other major political parties at the time.

Your writer maintains it was advisory only and merely a test of opinion. When was that made clear before and during the referendum? I have no recollection of it and, indeed, it does not make sense as the Government solemnly promised to honour the decision.

There was nothing to say that “this offer ends September 30, 2019” either.

Only after the result of the referendum the High Court (surprise, surprise!) decided it was not legally binding. Morally and politically it was, of course, binding and remains so.

The 2016 referendum was a truly one man/woman, one vote. Every vote carried equal weight and was apolitical. From the minute the result was announced, however, we entered "Animal Farm" territory. Small cliques of terribly clever and self-important individuals who absolutely knew best set out to rubbish the considered decisions of nearly seventeen and a half million other individuals.

The reason the result has still not been actioned is entirely down to the machinations of Remain manipulators. Had all politicians accepted the vote and acknowledged they all had a duty to work together to deliver it, we would have left the European Union long ago.

Your writer seems to believe referendums carry a very short life - no more than three years- and should then lapse, to be replaced by another in case some of the original voters may have died or others joined the electoral register. In the present situation more than seventeen million are still alive and waiting for their instructions to be carried out.

If a second people’s vote and, logically, afterwards - according to Jean Robinson’s reasoning - a third and then a fourth people’s vote is the answer, then the 1992 Maastricht Treaty would have been an ideal time to have had one.

Seventeen years had passed by 1992 since the first referendum, but it never occurred to the establishment that people may have become disillusioned by the Government keeping us in the Common Market, which today has, insidiously, morphed into a "German Commonwealth" or "Euroland" from which there is to be no escape.

John Hill