11 January 2017
The debate on what "Brexit" means, and whether and how it can be achieved, is now underway after a period of false jubilation and a one-sided argument.
Perhaps the Guardian can assist in this matter by clarifying the terms of the dabate, and helping readers understand what is on offer?
Firstly, always refer to the EU Referendum as the "advisory"referendum, because that is what it was.(see the Act itself). In itself it is not compulsory nor compelling.
Secondly, question why the result of the referendum has not been referred to Parliament to note and accept this advice, where the majority overall was only 4%.
Thirdly, note that advice from Scotland, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, and major cities such as London, was to remain in the EU
It is now up to Parliament to weigh up and debate this conflicting advice and to decide where the advantage lies for the UK in accepting any advice.
Fourthly, The Referendum made no provision for a clear margin of votes (eg. 66% or 75% ) to render the vote compelling; nor did it make provision for a tied vote (to be decided by the toss of a coin or the drawing of lots?) None of this was necessary, since the vote was only "advisory"
If someone receives advice from conflicting viewpoints, then this has to be weighed carefully, with a view to finding the right answer for the country as a whole. The present situation provides us with the worst of all options.
"Brexit means Brexit" is meaningless; in essence it is unenforceable. "A red-white-and-blue Brexit" won't have any blue in it if Scotland does not accept it either!
Clearly, both major parties are trying to appease their own memberships and hold their parties together, which is not good news for the UK itself.
Finally: Theresa May is trying to "hunt a Snark", which will turn out to be a "Boojum" the closer she gets to it. (see the poem by Lewis Carroll,which seems remarkably apt with its Bellman and crew).
Brian Else. (Wakefield Green Party)