FEW people, I suspect, would make a major purchase, such as a house, car, holiday, furniture, et cetera, without a comprehensive understanding of exactly what they were getting.

Yet, because of a marginal vote majority, after a campaign of distortion, lies, and untruths; duplicity demonstrated on a grand scale by the likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove; whose motives were more in consideration of their own good, than that of the country.

We are expected to accept the narrow result of a referendum that will effect the economic stability of this country in an adverse way for years to come.

How does it come about that 40 MPs, the rabid right wing of the Tory party, out of a parliament of 640, can create this situation?

Largely because Cameron thought he could shut them up by a referendum he didn’t expect to lose. “The best laid plans of mice and men” comes to mind.

The other factor of course was the campaign, based on xenophobic anti-this and anti-that, run by a party, UKIP, now clearly seen to be what it obviously is, dysfunctional and permanently engaged in a game of musical chairs to find a leader.

A party whose birth was inspired by a man, whose sole intent was to destroy the EU, whilst for years accepting a large salary and expenses from it. A man who now stands aside, and ironically calls for a second referendum himself.

Common sense dictates, that when we know what the details are, of course we should be given the opportunity to decide through the ballot box whether we find them acceptable or not.

The fact it would be retrospective of the original referendum, does not make it less valid.

According to Farage himself, before the referendum 48 per cent to leave in the EU would not be conclusive, and a second ballot would be necessary, well that cuts both ways in my opinion.

There are many who are concerned that like lemmings, we are rushing over a cliff edge.

Literally dispensing with benefits we do have with membership of the EU, for unknown ones that we may not get.

Certainly the utter incompetence being shown by our negotiating team at times does not inspire confidence, and as for Mrs May’s latest statement that she is not concerned how damaging leaving the EU is to this country, she is determined to go ahead with it, I find positively frightening, and deeply concerning.

If those that voted leave are so confident that it is what the country wants, then they surely can’t object to a second appraisal. I say a second vote is a must when we know the details.

Surely a potential ghastly mistake doesn’t have to be written in stone.

Mr D.R Smith,

Exeter Road,

Bitterne