In response to Ms Hamilton-Goya of Long Sutton (VMail, December 15), I’d like to say that quite simply, if people are going to be ignorant to the workings of the British voting system, maybe it’s not a matter of the aforementioned people being insulted, but rather, being ignorant members of society.
You state that Brexit should be a legally binding decision, and not a long drawn out affair (if you’ll excuse the paraphrasing). The fact of the matter is this – referendums are, in essence, opinion polls.
They mean little more than a survey you may be asked to complete in the town centre – they are designed to gauge public opinion with an aim to, potentially, act on the matter.
In this case, the matter is the enacting of a two-year process which, realistically, will take years longer than the legally binding deadline following the triggering of Article 50.
Recent reports suggest that trade negotiations could take up to a decade, and even then could end up not being successful.
So with that in mind, does it not make sense for the people that you claim ‘had no plans set in place’ to formulate a plan before we start the minefield of negotiations that will surely follow Article 50 being triggered?
And since this is the first time any country has gone through this process, I would be incredibly surprised if any country had a proper plan for what they would do if they left – I highly doubt even Nigel Farage had a credible plan for the matter.
I agree, the government was incredibly arrogant in thinking that we would vote to remain – they dropped the ball with their campaigning and information distribution, but ultimately, is it so bad to think that maybe, just maybe, this was a matter of misguided faith in how they thought we felt?
Sometimes people make mistakes, even politicians. That doesn’t mean they’re trying to subvert the democratic process. It means they’re human.
Jordan Swallow
Spalding
