The Brexit referendum has brought about a distinction between a certain group of English people and the rest of the citizens of the United Kingdom, all of whom are as British as the English of course. Andy Welsh (November 21) writes about “the British way”. He suggests that “with too much admixture, the British are in danger of losing their ‘Britishness’’’.

This is rather a worrying statement, harking back to the 1930s, but let’s not dwell on that. Surely the peoples of a nation as diverse multicultural as the UK, do not necessarily fit in with Welsh’s concept of “the British way”, as he puts it.

One cannot deny there is a strong element of racism and xenophobia in Maltese society. Many of us are ashamed of it, and it is surely a mistake for Welsh to refer to it implying as being similar to “the British way”. I grew up believing in “the British way”, but that was a very long time ago and now, I accept peoples and customs as they are.

There is no point in trying to turn the clock back, and frankly I would not wish to. And anyhow, much of the past of “the British way” is nothing to be proud of. In fact it is studded with shameful episodes, along with the glorious ones.

Welsh, a remainer, says “the British way” is “to rejoice in the will of the populace as expressed through the ballot box”, quite ignoring that the referendum was ill-judged. I firmly believe the referendum was not valid; it was a mistake by Parliament and must be put right by Parliament.

It would be a gross oppression of the 48 per cent who voted to remain, including two of the nations that make up the United Kingdom, to simply override their interests.

Many of those who voted to leave have since changed their minds, realising they were led astray by a programme of misinformation and lies.

Think of the appalling risk to the British Union, if there is to be a serious confrontation with Scotland and, yes, Ireland, where the fragile peace is held together by membership of the EU.

Another point made by Welsh, concerns “the stifling layer of bureaucracy coming from Brussels”. Nobody likes it, but it is a small price to pay, for all the benefits of membership – which, incidentally have never been fully explained to the British people. And, yes, we all agree there is need for reform.

Another correspondent pointed out that “the idea of an EU without further movement towards full economic union, with a central fiscal authority, is what will be borne out if the euro is to survive. This, of course will be anathema to most sovereign states - and none more so than here.

With regard to economic union, we have it already: single currency, European Central Bank. What makes anyone think that all this is “anathema to most sovereign states”. To my mind Great Britain made a huge mistake when it did not join the euro on favourable terms. Britain’s lack of commitment to the European ideal is a tragedy for both Britain and the EU.

I firmly believe the referendum was not valid; it was a mistake by Parliament and must be put right by Parliament

I was told by the same correspondent “not to forget trade is a two-way street - and the German car industry, for one, will object most vehemently if punitive tariffs get in the way of its doing business with its second biggest market.” I’d say, that it is my impression that people who buy expensive cars do not pay too much attention to price, and in any case, imposing a tariff earns a reciprocal one.

As the weeks go by it seems to me that Brexit cannot ever happen. Right from the start I believed it would be impossible to break away without a complete crash in the British economic and social fabric, leading inevitably to some sort of fascist dictatorship.

The legal complications are nearly insurmountable, the law in England is now so closely intertwined with European law, that it would take an army of legal eagles to unwind the tangle. A leaked memo of Deloitte’s warns that Whitehall was working on more than 500 Brexit-related projects and that up to 30,000 extra civil servants may be needed.

It also detailed a split within the cabinet, with the “three Brexiteers” — Boris Johnson, David Davis and Liam Fox — on one side and Philip Hammond, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Greg Clark, the business secretary, on the other.

Now the High Court has decreed that Parliament must be consulted before Article 50 may be invoked. This decision enraged the fascist media, and the Lord Chancellor failed in her duty to respond on behalf of the High Court judges. The Prime Minister does not have the honesty and moral fibre of Margaret Thatcher, nor I suspect the intelligence and vision, to face up to the impossible situation into which she has cornered herself.

Lady Hale, a Supreme Court judge recently opined: “Another question is whether it would be enough for a simple act of Parliament to authorise the government to give notice, or whether it would have to be a comprehensive replacement of the 1972 act.” The European Communities Act 1972 took the UK into the then European Economic Community. While 51.9 per cent of the British electorate had voted to leave the EU, she added “that referendum was not legally binding on Parliament”.

It is also worth taking note of the leader of the Liberal Party, Tim Farron’s opinion: “What does Brexit mean? Once we know, the people must have a vote on it. It is the only logical and democratic option on the table.” He says there should be a referendum at the end of this process so that nobody would have imposed upon them something they didn’t vote for.

Farron respected the result of the June referendum, but said it “must not now end up with a stitch-up, with a deal being imposed on the British people that absolutely nobody voted for”.

In a leading article carried on November 16, The Times commented thus: “Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union will bring momentous change to our laws, our constitution, our economy, our livelihoods and quite possibly the constitution of our United Kingdom. It is a process on which the government has chosen to give ‘no running commentary’ but in which there is an overwhelming public interest…and a prime minister whose instinct is to funnel huge amounts of information (and the burden of epoch-making decisions) to herself and herself alone.

“There are plenty of tactical reasons for Mrs May to play her Brexit cards close to her chest. Unfortunately there is also growing reason to fear that her dread of disclosure is borne not of a mastery of high-stakes poker but of habit and insecurity. If her government fails to set the terms of such an important debate, they will be set by others. It needs to be more candid, where possible, with the voters who initiated Brexit. It needs to be less fearful of divisions within the Conservative Party and more mindful of the need to keep the nation informed.”

Peter Apap Bologna is a chartered accountant.