A Pair of Brexit Thought Experiments

It’s been a little while, but I’m afraid this is another Brexit post. However, it’s not going to go in the direction you might think. I want to run through a couple of inter-related thought experiments. I’m going to run through some events and it’s going to be clear who I am talking about, but I want you to ignore any pre-conceptions you may have and go with it.

So first up I want to rewind to the pre-referendum time, back when your pound was still worth something on the global stage.

Now, imagine you’re a relatively senior member of the Government and you back Remain. You back it wholeheartedly. You expect Remain to win. You can see Cameron and Osborne campaigning and don’t think they’re doing an especially good job, but you’re still reasonably confident. However, you know there’s a chance of losing the vote.

Either because you know something or because you have read your boss well, you think that should Leave win then the Prime Minister will resign, leaving a gap at the top which will most likely be hotly contested by those on the Leave side. They would have won the vote and see that as a mandate to take control of the Party and the country. You believe these people to be, let’s be diplomatic, ass-hats, and can’t stomach the idea of them taking charge and destroying the country because it appears they know nothing about what they’re doing.

You believe, rightly or wrongly, that being an outspoken Remainer will not win any more votes over to the Remain side, but more importantly, you know that if you are on the frontline then you basically rule yourself out as the next Prime Minister. With all that in mind, you decide to keep quiet in the lead up to the vote. Some could see this as wanting to make a grab for power, but that’s not necessarily the case. You want what’s best for the country and, looking around, all the other options are bad. Should the unthinkable happen and Leave wins, you view yourself as the only steady, reliable hand. The only person who would have a chance of being Prime Minister who would have a chance of getting the country out of the mess it’s in.

Is that why Theresa May did what she did in the run up the referendum? Who knows, but it’s a compelling narrative. But does it also chime with what has come since? That leads me on to my second thought experiment.

So, all that was laid out in the first half of this post has come to be and you are Prime Minister. You are tasked with taking the Uk out of the EU, something you think is an unholy mistake. You think it will lay to waste so many aspects of the country, it is a disaster of unparalleled proportions. How do you go about it?

You have a mandate from the country that you feel you have to follow through on. It is an unwinnable situation. Whatever deal you come away with at the end of negotiations will be a bad one. The ones that do the best for the UK – the soft Brexit options – will be seen as a copout by the electorate. They will involve us still paying into the EU and will probably do nothing (or, at most, very little) to get back our sovereignty, stop immigration, free us to cut our own trade deals – the things people were misguidedly voting for. If you manage to do one of those things you won’t be satisfying everyone who voted Leave. At best a soft Brexit probably meets the requirements for maybe 40% of Leave voters while the rest will feel screwed over because they didn’t get what they want.

On the other hand, if you go for the hard Brexit option you give those people what they want, but also a whole load of what they didn’t want. Added to which, the ramifications for the country will be catastrophic. And again, you’ll probably only please maybe 40% of the Leave voters. People will say “I only wanted to stop immigration, I didn’t want businesses to leave the country, we needed to stay in the single market”, etc and so on.

Basically, you have inherited a no-win situation. There’s nothing you can do that will please the country (and remember, 48% of the country didn’t vote for any of these options, and you didn’t want them either). So what do you do? How do you fix this mess?

First of all, you need to maximise the time you have to get the result you need while also making people think we’re moving forward. The initial Brexit discussions were about when Article 50 would be invoked. European elections meant we couldn’t delay for ever, but equally we needed a plan before we started negotiations. Sometime in the new year seemed a fair compromise. Arguably March 2017 is about as long as it could be left. Announcing that at the Tory Party conference gives a 6 month window to come up with a plan.

The next thing is to build a case for either the softest of Brexits or not having one at all in your 6 month window. How do you do that? Well, if you announce that we’re aiming for total removal from the EU, that the UK will go it alone, it’s likely that people will freak out. The pound will dive. Businesses will get scared and start openly talking about how they plan to leave the UK. Foreign investment will dry up. Fewer jobs will be created. The cost of living will start to rise as the UK imports far more than it exports and even the things produced at home are often produced using foreign parts, so all these things will become more expensive to the regular consumer. In the run up to Christmas this would be a nightmare. Wallets will feel the pinch. People won’t be able to afford to go abroad.

Many of those who voted to Leave fall into two categories – the older generation and the poorer households. Many of the older generation rely on state pensions which now won’t go as far. Some winter abroad and now will find that more expensive. Poorer households will struggle to make ends meet.

Suddenly the reality of what Brexit might mean will hit home. The discussion will shift to “And this is all happening before we’ve even left – things will only get worse”. People will panic. Then it becomes possible to raise the prospect of not going through with it. Whether or not that can be followed through is a different matter, but at least it brings the conversation out in the open. It gives us a chance of staying.

I think it’s notable that the policies regarding Brexit that caused the most fuss at the Tory Party conference came from remainers – Theresa May, Jeremy Hunt and Amber Rudd. Their speeches sparked debate about how we treated people from other countries, and how much we rely on them. The NHS can’t be truly self-sufficient in terms of medical staff. It’s outrageous and impractical for all businesses to publish the number of foreign workers they have (this has, of course, since been taken back and was “never an official policy”).

Of course, the three Brexiteers will continue to talk their guff. Guff which isn’t aligned with each other. And guff which is rapidly dismissed by various EU politicians. But it all plays a part.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see further announcements and proclamations which spark debate and outrage around the country in the coming weeks and months, and the debate starting to take a different shape in the new year. Now, whether that debate will be enough to prevent Brexit from actually happening is a different matter, and there are questions as to whether a soft Brexit is even possible (European Council President Donald Tusk certainly seems to have ruled it out). To be fair, it’s difficult to see any deal that gets signed off by all 27 states and the EU Council, so the options probably are limited. Shaping the debate to all-or-nothing might be beneficial.

Of course, this is all speculation. I have no idea. Maybe Theresa May really is moving the Conservatives into the UKIP space in a bid to appeal to the modern xenophobe. Maybe she doesn’t care about the shape of the country and her legacy. But right now, her moves are the same as those I would make if I were trying to shift the debate and keep the UK in the EU.

The Loving Embrace of the Inevitable Heat-Death of the Universe

Is it really not even three weeks since the referendum? So much has changed in such a short time, and tomorrow we’ll have a new Prime Minister installed, a woman who’s record points towards more right than centre on the political spectrum (voted against the repeal section 28, and more recently declared her ambitions to take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights) somehow became the Liberals preferred choice when the other runners and riders for the role came forward.

In my last post I said I had a sneaking suspicion that Article 50 wouldn’t be invoked, suggesting that, like Leicester, it was a rank outsider that might just come good in the long run. That was in the halcyon days when Boris Johnson was favoured to be the next Prime Minister and appeared to be doing everything he could to undo the mistake he appeared to realise he had made by leading such a successful Leave campaign. Now the possibilities of not leaving the EU seem more like Tottenham Hotspur’s chances of winning the 2015/16 Premier League – unlikely at the start, then hopes raised before failing comically at the last.

Theresa May has said that “Brexit means Brexit”, but given that no one wants to say what Brexit actually means, beyond that recursive statement, there’s still much to play for, and it’s making for a fascinating period in politics.

Now, fascinating can be taken in many different ways. I don’t want that to be taken as an indication that, ultimately, I am happy with where we are – I most certainly am not. Nor that I am happy with the direction we are heading. I would say this is fascinating in the same way that studying the decomposition of your own severed hand would be fascinating – I didn’t want the hand severed, I feel I should probably be doing something more about it, but given the significant lack of options, I may as well see what I can learn from the horrific process while it’s going on.

The leadership ‘race’ was like the worst Hunger Games movie ever made, in which each contestant was suffering from manic depression and instead of successive fights to the death they decided to kill themselves in a variety of mundane ways. In the case of the Conservative leadership race it seems that everyone’s mode of suicide was ‘being themselves’ and the last woman standing, Britain’s Jennifer Lawrence, is Theresa May. Can’t we have J-Law instead?

Now, despite being the liberal’s choice, don’t be fooled by T-May’s promises of uniting Britain, sorting out our economy and sticking up for the working man. These are the same things David Cameron was saying back when he was elected party leader in 2005 and he’s just leaving number 10 as probably the worst Prime Minister since Neville Chamberlain, having failed to hit any of his targets self-imposed and unnecessary targets, made the country poorer, reduced social mobility, increased inequality, made further education the most expensive in the world from a standing start, and split the country in so many different ways it’s a wonder anyone likes anyone else anymore. I suppose you could say the only way is up, until you realise we are currently part of the EU, with freedom of movement and all of the other benefits it brings, so don’t think things are going to get better any time soon.

Sorry, that’s rather bleak, isn’t it? So what are our options from here? Is there anything to get excited about? Well, assuming that “Brexit means Brexit” means invoking Article 50, the first question is when that will happen. Obviously the world wants us to do this as quickly as possible, but we are under no obligation to stick to any timescale. With significant elections happening in Europe in 2017 (including in Germany and France, the other members of Europe’s big 3, along with the UK for now), there’s an argument for waiting until those have been completed to make the negotiations easier. At the very least, waiting until the New Year seemed to be on the cards, but right now, who honestly knows? A possibility has also been raised of the ability to revoke the decision within the 2 year negotiation period, but it might take some legal trickery to pull that one off.

There is also the question of legal challenges being made that suggest the Prime Minister can’t invoke Article 50 without the go ahead of parliament – it being unclear whether this includes both the Commons and the Lords. The case has been made in both directions and it’s safe to say I don’t fully understand either, but given that many MPs seem to be taking the route that “the people voted Brexit so that’s what I must do if it comes to a commons vote” (something I know the MPs of friends have communicated to them), this doesn’t look too hopeful either.

That said, the argument I made to my own MP when I felt she might be faltering in this direction maybe slightly more persuasive. I would be upset losing this referendum under any circumstances, but it’s not being a bad loser to decry the tactics played by the opposition in this case. This would not be like Cristiano Ronaldo getting upset with ‘defensive’ Iceland after their draw at the Euros. Iceland played within the rules and there is a strong (undeniable?) case that the Leave campaign did not. The promises made were not promises, they were suggestions, ideas, possibilities (they were lies). If the Remain campaign had promised everyone in the country a Mercedes, they would not have been less truthful.

The fact is that the Leave campaign was operating like Lance Armstrong – does he deserve to keep his tour victories because he won at the time or should he have lost them when the truth was revealed? Of course, the frustrating thing for most people on the Remain side is that we knew they were lies and we told people they were lies, but apparently we were “suckered in by Project Fear” rather than Project Reality. Yet now we hear of university researchers being excluded from projects because EU partner organisations don’t know whether we’ll still be eligible for funding. And so the brain drain begins (though given the result, not to mention level of the debate, you could reasonably make the argument that it began long ago).

The thing I don’t understand is why there is no investigation into this? I appreciate that the Chilcott enquiry has taken 7 years to return it’s (very thorough) verdict, but this is of arguably greater importance to the future of the country and no one thinks we should look into the manner of the campaign and whether it was conducted on a level playing field?

Here’s a counterpoint. In June, a public vote takes place, shortly after which it is revealed that the victor was involved in deceiving the public. There is widespread outrage. Those at the centre of the deception are tabloid fodder for days and the story is covered by all the broadsheets too. An investigation is launched and, eventually, a guilty verdict is reached. The year is 2015 and ITV are found guilty of deceiving the public, paving the way for Jules O’Dwyer and Matisse to win Britain’s Got Talent. Now obviously that was much more scandalous – the public had to pay £1 per vote, while the votes in the EU referendum were free – but I still feel like there should be some kind of public enquiry into how a campaign on such a serious matter should be allowed to be conducted on the basis of such lies.

I have made this case to my MP and it felt like it was taken on board. Whether or not that matters, given the signs of resignation from many in the Remain camp, remains to be seen, though the Lords may be a different matter. They are unelected, and so perhaps less concerned with upsetting the public, and have proved surprisingly useful in a few votes in recent years. I’m not holding out hope, mind.

So what kind of a deal might we end up with? I think it’s pretty pointless to try to predict right now. We don’t know when it’ll happen, who will be involved (apparently we have too few trade negotiators in this country so may need to draft them in from abroad – those Barmy Brussels Bureaucrats may soon be doing our deals for us), or anything else about the process. I think the one thing we do know is that whatever kind of deal we get, it’s only going to satisfy about 1% of the population.

I mean, we’re on the weaker side of the negotiating table so if we get access to the single market (which seems to be a pre-requisite from almost everyone who’s spoken on the subject) we’re going to have to keep freedom of movement – perhaps a deal which walks back the frankly unprecedented deal David Cameron negotiated on freedom of movement prior to the vote. So that’s anyone who voted for immigration unhappy. In fact, the single market, means we’ll have to abide by the EU laws we apparently don’t like as well, so those sovereignty voters will be out of luck. Likewise if you wanted the country to save money, well that was a lie, for starters, but also access to the single market will cost us. Meanwhile, the Remain camp will obviously be unhappy regardless because any deal that gets done will be worse than the one we had as members of the EU.

The only other option appears to be to get out of everything and go it alone, but I struggle to believe any rational Government could consent to trying to do that kind of deal. Given that new trade deals with the EU alone would take a minimum of 4 years to negotiate, and then there’s the rest of the world (logistically we couldn’t negotiate with everyone all at once), it would risk crushing the economy of this country and setting us back 30 years.

To be honest, part of me had been hoping that Andrea Leadsom might end up taking the Tory Party leadership. I mean clearly she’s insane (not in any actual way relating to her sanity, but in a “all of her opinions and public offerings seem to be diametrically opposed to mine and any right-thinking individual” kind of way, though we’ve recently seen how many fewer right seeking individuals there appear to be compared to what we once thought), but it would have continued the fascinating theme.

And no, before you ask, it wouldn’t have been like looking at my other severed hand decompose. Reports circulate briefly over the weekend that Tory party members fearful of the possibility of a Leadsom-led party and Labour party members in increasing despair at the reign of Jeremy Corbyn were talking about breaking off from their respective parties and joining in the middle somewhere. Of course, this would have been in the middle between two right of centre parties, one slightly more right of centre than the other. The prospect of essentially all parties going into proper meltdown and the possibility of the complete reinvention of politics in this country briefly had me excited. And then Leadsom pulled out yesterday, dashing any of those hopes completely.

And yet… The Liberal Democrats have already come out and said that their primary policy will be to either stop the UK leaving the EU or getting us to rejoin the EU in the event that we leave, which sets up a potentially fascinating election in 0-4 years time (yes, it’s due in 2020, but everything has gone batshit mental so I’m not going to predict we’re going to be waiting that long for it to happen). There’s the possibility that no one will want to Vote Tory because they don’t like the Brexit deal negotiated (or the fact that one had to be negotiated at all), and no one will vote Labour because of the implosion they are going through shows no sign of abating. OK, so the Corbyn-ites will vote Labour but everyone else will abandon them, possibly including their MPs. UKIP will keep their stubborn band of supporters but fail to bring any more along with them. And meanwhile the Lib Dems could sneak up around the outside. At the very least we could have a parliament split three ways and with no one willing to share power with anyone else.

Actually, make that four ways. There’s the SNP to consider, a party who, I honestly believe, if they put up candidates in each constituency outside Scotland would have a decent chance of taking the entire country. And that would answer a big question about the fate of the union – I mean why would they need to vote for independence if they already ran England as well?

So, what to make of all this? I don’t fucking know. I vacillate between anger, despair, resignation and fascination constantly. Strangely, like many of those who voted Leave, I have never felt so disenfranchised. As Homer Simpson once said – “When will people learn, democracy doesn’t work”. I’m not a great believer in dictatorships but fuck it, put me in charge and let me do what I want and I’ll sort it out. If everyone just did what I want them to do this would all be much better.

But seriously, despite the disenfranchisement, there’s a possibility for a decent future, but only if we don’t forget, only if we keep the pressure on, only if we keep reminding those in charge that, ultimately, we are in charge of them. Having written to my MP now, I’ve got the bug. I will be putting pressure on her over issues. I will be expressing my concern over the way things are run and making it clear that my vote is earned and that people in this country do care and won’t let people do what they want. The more they hear from constituents stating their desires and their requirements, the more likely they are to take that on board and to adjust policy positions. So I would encourage everyone to write, and to write about everything that you feel matters.

And if all that fails, you should remember that, in the end, it will all be OK. I am, of course, talking about the inevitable heat-death of the universe. It comes to us all.

Brexit, Bregret, Brindecision … and Bremain?

I’m going to say something that I think you’ll think is crazy, and then I’m going to set out my stall. I don’t think the UK is going to quit the EU.

Late Friday night/early Saturday morning I put the odds down as being 1% for the Government not invoking Article 50 and 0.01% of having another referendum. 0.01% is odds of 10,000 to 1. Well, let’s double the chances (making it 5,000 to 1) because then it’s the same odds as Leicester winning the Premier League in 2015-16 and that means I can use a nice footballing analogy.

So yesterday I was thinking that the UK remaining in the EU was like Leicester’s chances last summer, before a ball had been kicked. This morning, I felt like we’d reached October 2015 in the Premier League. Leicester were doing well but everyone knew they would fall away, no one really believed they would win it. I think I’ve now reached Christmas 2015. This is the point at which people were saying “They’ve got a difficult run of matches ahead of them, but if they come out of that well then they’ve got a chance.” The next week is Leicester’s difficult run of matches, and explain why shortly. Let me first issue a caveat – the possibility of remaining may not be Leicester. It may be Crystal Palace. Palace were competing for the Champions League spots in October/November kind of time and then promptly barely took a point for the rest of the season. I may be backing the wrong no hoper.

But let me try to build a case. And what a case it is, featuring as it does the redemption of David Cameron. He wouldn’t need a redemption if he hadn’t messed everything up in the first place, but it could be that this redemption does more for the country than a straight win for Remain ever would have done.

Now, in building this case, I’m combining information culled from multiple stories to produce one narrative. You may well have already seen some of those sources. I apologise for not crediting the individual theories, thoughts, anecdotes and stories, but most of them can probably be seen on my Facebook timeline so you shouldn’t have to look far to find them.

Let’s start this story with a picture. A picture I shall title Victory is Mine!

Victory is Mine!

Victory is Mine!

These men have just won the most amazing political victory of their lives. Something I described as the most important decision in the history of the UK since we decided to go to war in 1939. This is a campaign they fought long and hard for, one they passionately believed in, one they went to war with colleagues in their own party over. They’re very excited about it. Jubilant. I think, just before they walked on stage they were shaking bottles of champagne over each others like Grand Prix winners.

So this has been noted in plenty of places, but they are not happy men. This was not supposed to happen. They were supposed to be plucky losers representing the common man and using their new-found popularity to ride a wave into number 10 (Boris more likely, with Gove as Chancellor?) when Cameron stood down before the next election. They both knew, Boris especially, that Leaving would be bad, ne cataclysmic, but that campaign had no realistic chance, right? So now they are in a position where they have to make the biggest mistake in British history.

Why do they have to make it? That’s because of Cameron’s decision to walk away without pulling the plug. I barely stopped short of labelling his resignation cowardly in my previous post, but an excellent comment left on a Guardian article (since shared virally on social media) has made me realise that it was, in fact, incredibly astute with regards to the future of this country and our position in Europe.

For one, he stated that we shouldn’t invoke Article 50 until a replacement is in place. Invocation would lead to two years of negotiation with the EU and if he’s not going to be around for that, it should be left to his successor. What that did was buy us time to sort this mess out. Perhaps more importantly, it gives time for the general public to realise what a mistake leaving would be.

As the importance of this decision sinks in, it will become clear how much of a poisoned chalice the leadership is. Whoever comes in will go down as the Prime Minister who crippled the country, and crippled it not just by leaving the EU, but also in all likelihood leading to the breakaway of Scotland and, possibly, Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom, and who wants that on their resume.

The other important element of this is the enormous amount of Bregret being felt across the country. There have been an incredible number of reports of people wanting to take their vote back. Comment pages on articles on the Daily Mail and The Sun websites show readers complaining that their newspapers gave them poor information in advance of their votes. What had been dismissed as scaremongering by the Leave camp has turned out to be all too real and these people feel cheated. So taking on the role of Prime Minister would not only mean irreversibly damaging the country (destroying the country as we know it), but also making a decision that the majority of voters no longer back.

So what does this mean? I realise that my case still has someone pulling the trigger, despite how unpalatable that job is. Well firstly, there is plenty of precedent in countries across the EU for ignoring or re-running referenda that initially came out negative. Now, none of those decisions were of the same scale as this one, but most of them featured wider margins of victory than in this one.

I contacted my MP earlier today to register my feelings about the referendum – about the fact that each of the promises made by the Leave side was a lie to one degree or another. These promises have been unravelling across the weekend when, in various interviews, leading players in the Leave team have admitted that money won’t go on the NHS, that immigration won’t fall, that free trade is unlikely to continue if we try to stop immigration, that the British economy will be stronger out – about the fact that voters no longer believed in their vote – and about the fact that the electorate were not educated enough to make this decision. My MP shared my concerns and I am convinced that there will be healthy discussions within Parliament about the fact that this is not the best thing for Britain. The vast majority of MPs believe the UK should stay and, I believe, will try to build a case to do anything to prevent this self-immolation.

What does that mean? Well, most likely I think will be a second referendum. I don’t believe the Government will just discard the outcome of the vote. This would cause far more problems with those most vocal on the Leave side not accepting it. Don’t get me wrong, I think they will be strongly against a second referendum too, but if they have a difficult case to argue. If they say we shouldn’t have another because the majority of people want to Leave the argument coming back to them will be “Why are you afraid of another vote, if the majority are with you?”, while if they accept a second vote I think they would struggle to get past 40% of the vote, perhaps even less.

MPs will make the case that their constituents have contacted them to say they made the wrong choice, that there is an overwhelming and compelling case that we should have a rerun and with the majority of their colleagues behind them I believe they will get their way. Thankfully.

I also think this may be agreed as soon as during this week. With pressure coming from the EU to invoke Article 50 as soon as possible in order to stabilise markets and enable Europe to start moving on, the UK will need to do something quickly. Admittedly, the EU can’t force us to do anything but we probably want to avoid annoying the rest of Europe much more. If we can clarify that there will be a second vote in relatively short order, and there is a much clearer backing for Remain this time, markets should stabilise and the worst can be behind us. The UK already look like dicks to the rest of the world, we would look a bit more sensible if we admitted we were wrong, and did so as soon as possible. Essentially, it’s like we all got really, really drunk and did some stupid things and now we need to go and contact all the people in our phones and apologise to them. Better to do that than say “I’ll just get new friends”.

So what kind of timescale would we be looking at? This is my made up scenario so I can make something up about this too, right? I’m building my case. What makes most sense is to have one done before the Conservative party elect a new leader. We want this done as quickly as possible and the Conservative party won’t want a leader with this hanging over their heads. Boris will happily endorse it, confident they can win again while Farage will hate the idea, and both for the same reason, they know Leave can’t win again. I would suggest we’d be looking at 6-8 weeks time for another run, so mid-to-late August?

That then gives the Tories a couple of months to sort out their new leader between the end of the next Referendum and their conference. The added advantage for them is that remaining in the EU would lessen the calls for a new General Election, something they’d like to avoid considering the mess they’re currently in (even with Labour in a similar mess). If they can hold off on an election until 2020, they might avoid some of the UKIP gains that would be likely in the event of an election called later this year. If we are to continue with the Brexit then surely a General Election is a must to ensure the public get the negotiating team they want for the exit mechanism.

So back at the top of this piece I said that David Cameron might have a redemption greater than if he had just won the referendum straight up. Well, that obviously only happens if we do get that second go around, but assuming that happens, the results the first time around have brought the deep unhappiness that exists throughout the UK society to the fore. Politicians are aware that they can’t just brush people to the side because they are unpredictable and they can mess up even the best laid plans. Politicians had become complacent, but if this leads to some kind of… well, it’s not going to be a revolution… but a rebalancing of power, of a wider range of voices at the table and the end of the Bullingdon Club domination of the Houses of Parliament, that will perhaps be the best thing to happen here since the end of Thatcherism.

So that’s my case. How crazy is it? Is it Leicester or Crystal Palace crazy? I guess time will tell, but right now I believe.

Anything else?

A couple of things that I didn’t fit into my narrative.

The biggest concern right now is the right wing extremism that is now coming out onto the streets. A search on twitter for #PostBrexitRacism should show you the kind of incidents that are occurring across the country. The far right in this country were always behind Brexit and they have taken they majority verdict as an indictment of their views. Suddenly they are justified in what they think because the majority are behind them. it is terrifying to think of what this country will become if we follow through with the Brexit. I am surprised that those on the Leave side a) aren’t condemning this behaviour more and b) that they don’t understand the role they have played in bringing this to the fore. I can’t think of many times in history when being on the same side as the racists has been a good idea and it will be interesting to see how this develops. Hopefully with the racist outbursts disappearing. In the meantime I’d urge anyone encountering any kind of incident to step in and to reassure those on the receiving end that the majority of this country are behind them, whatever the polls may appear to say. It’s sad that the most vocal are often the most objectionable and we should try to put a stop to that.


Finally, there has been pushback from a number of hardened Leave supporters. They won and they want their victory and the rest of us should shut up and accept it. I can understand that, they currently have a remarkable victory. What I find astonishing is that, those that I know, are saying this despite the promises they bought being pulled back in. It seems that if people didn’t instantly regret their vote after the results came out then they are sticking with it. It’s tough. I’d issue the same challenge to them as the Government will have to do to the Leave campaign as a whole – if it’s such a strong win then you should have no problem with another referendum. What I can tell you is that those of us appalled and distraught by the result, who fear for what it means for this country and our families, are going to continue to fight. This fight doesn’t end. I’m sorry, but it doesn’t. And if we do pull out of the EU, when the money goes and the jobs follow, I’m sorry but I hope yours go first. You wanted this and you should be the ones that suffer.