THE referendum result seems a very fair and efficient way for big political decisions to be resolved.

They imply a much more direct form of democracy than that operated through our parliament. The Swiss are very fond of referendums but a character in the film The Third Man based on a novel by Graham Greene stated that their (the Swiss) main claim to fame was the invention of the cuckoo clock.

More seriously, the referendum as a constitutional mechanism is in some ways unsatisfactory. And is it suitable to make a very large constitutional change on the basis of a 52 per cent - 48 per cent vote?

Perhaps a minimum vote for change should be 60 per cent or more.

The EU for their part, like to repeat referendums a second time when they do not get ‘the right decision’ the first time. They did this twice in Ireland, once in France and also in Holland, a recent referendum result by the Dutch concerning their relations with the Ukraine being apparently ignored by the EU Commission.

A potentially serious criticism of the referendum as a way of determining big decisions was made by a writer in the French weekly news magazine Marianne – a copy seen by me in one of the university libraries in Cardiff.

In terms, the suggestion was that the referendum suits the demagogue rather than the democrat.

The former individual, as often as not a dictator, appeals mainly to the emotions, whereas the latter gives a greater weight not only to common sense but to facts and logical arguments and emotions too.

Some of the arguments on both sides of the referendum debate have been shown to be faulty. The remainers exaggerated the downside of leaving the EU, the leavers exaggerated the benefits of our departure.

It remains to be seen how things will turn out in the next six to 12 months, both in Britain and with our continental neighbours.

Michael O'Neill

Railway Terrace

Penarth