I AM sorry to say the recent election, far from healing the nation, has deepened its divisions still further.

By conflating Brexit and representation in a single ballot, we have achieved clarity on neither; our democratic dysfunction goes from bad to worse.

Claiming a "stonking mandate" to deliver Brexit is technically correct, measured in seats. But the original 2016 vote was a national pool, on a vague statement of intent - technically, an initiative petition, not a referendum. All votes since have been considered subordinate to that pooled vote, but they are counted on a different basis. Johnson's "mandate" is, at best, 46 per cent of the vote, comparing like with like.

I am well aware the horse has bolted, but how much more consensual it would be if we had adopted the American/Swiss system whereby certain questions are separated from election of representatives on the same ballot.

Simply by adding the non-binding advisory "Do you wish to continue with efforts to leave the European Union?", we would be freed to vote for our party of choice. Unionist Remainers could avoid the SNP, socialist Brexiters could reject Johnson, and so on. We would also gain an up-to-date picture of 2020 sentiment on Brexit, surely more democratic than slavish adherence to four-year-old statistics. If this poll went Remain, Leavers - having used "will of the people" as an argument for four years, could hardly complain. If Leave, Remainers would likewise be forced to concede that their final say had been given.

Such an addition was achievable by an amendment to the Election Bill. Hostile MPs would be hard-pressed to argue they were resisting on grounds of "democracy", pitting 2016 against 2020. If they continue to hold out, they don't get their election! It's sneaky, but what else is new?

The subsequent campaign would be a shoot-out between "Get Brexit done" and "Forget it" - simple statements play well. Rather than offering a vague benefit from the very state of "done-ness", Johnson's side would be obliged to sell the benefits of the plan itself. It would not be a rerun of 2016, but a fight on a concrete proposal - a true referendum.

Allan Miller

Sedgwick