A rationalist's viewSirs
In his letter, Roger Mallett suggests that those of us that are asking for a second referendum wish to ‘thwart the democratically expressed wish of the electorate’.
I consider myself to be a rationalist.
If you were to line up every Member of Parliament and ask them the question “Would it be fair to say that you are an MP because you wish to do the best for your country and the best for your constituents? Anyone disagree with that statement?” I think we can assume that they would all agree - although we might (rightly) feel that there are other more personal motives!
But assuming they agree, then why was it that MPs of every party, including members of the cabinet, (apart from UKIP) were divided when it came to the referendum?
Surely the answer has to be that they did not have a clue what the implications of leaving the EU would be either for the country or for their constituents. And of course neither did the electorate. I don’t think I am only speaking for myself when I suggest that we voted with our hearts rather than our heads.
Is it not therefore perfectly rational that once we do know the implication of leaving the EU - and the signs seem to be significantly bad both for the economy and those worst off in our society - we should have another opportunity to vote?
Roger Mallet also mentions Donald Tusk. Has it occurred to anyone else that the 'Elephants in the Room' are both called Donald – that is Tusk and Trump(et).