Follow-up letter to my MP repeating my request that he back a #PeoplesVote

I just sent this to my MP, Mark Harper, via the WriteToThem web-site. It is a follow-up to my letter of two weeks ago, which has not received a reply.

Dear Mark Harper,

Two weeks ago, I wrote to you about withdrawal agreement negotiated by Theresa May and her team, asking you to vote against the deal. As I have not received a reply, I am writing again.

The withdrawal agreement reached between UK and EU negotiators has now been published, and its broad outlines are now well understood. Unless something dramatic happens in the next couple of weeks, the agreement will be put to the Commons for a vote. I urge you to reject the agreement, as it bears no relation to anything that we were promised in campaigning before the Brexit referendum, and because if were implemented it would be economically harmful to the Forest of Dean, an already impoverished constituency.

Please do not brush this off with a reference to “the will of the people” or “implementing the result of the referendum”. We can leave aside the multiple findings of outright illegal behaviour by the Leave campaign — this is irrelevant at the moment. What matters now is the simple fact that what is on the table is not the thing that 52% of us thought we were voting for. To push this emasculating compromise through would not be to implement the wishes of the 52%. In fact, the developments of the last 28 months have shown that there is no way for the wishes of the 52% to be implemented in anything like the form that was promised by the Leave campaign.

This being so, it seems to me that the only democratic course is to lay before the electorate the options that actually exist, in a referendum on the exit terms. We now know the deal the EU will accept for our exit. We also have the option of remaining in the EU. (Everyone outside of a hardcore group of Europhobes recognises that leaving without a deal would be catastophic.) With both realistic options now capable of clear articulation, the only legitimate and practical way to conclude a process that began in democracy is with more democracy — a referendum to select between these options.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Mike Taylor.

If you feel similarly, I urge you to write to your own MP. It doesn’t take long: the WriteToThem site is very streamlined.

Advertisements

34 responses to “Follow-up letter to my MP repeating my request that he back a #PeoplesVote

  1. “there is no way for the wishes of the 52% to be implemented in anything like the form that was promised by the Leave campaign”

    This is the most problematic part of your letter.

    *Some* people may have voted on this, of all issues, based on the Leave campaign. I have however not met one person who fits this description. Every leave voter I have spoken to (admittedly a smaller pool than the number of remain voters I have spoken to) was voting in line with a stance they had come to over the course of many years. I don’t know a single person who voted Remain because of the Remain campaign. Do you? Most leave voters I know want to leave. As in exit. Quit. Find egress. No longer be a part of. May’s deal doesn’t provide that, but “no deal” certainly does.

    Do you disagree? I don’t see how you can, but I’m interested in why you think Leave’s shambolic half arsed campaign was this mighty juggernaut that swept all before it, and was the critical factor in a decision a sane person must have already had an inkling of, years before Cameron ever promised a referendum. Bu more importantly I would also like to know why you think somebody who voted Leave won’t have their wishes implemented if we Leave. The financial aspect is a red herring. They just want to leave.

  2. “there is no way for the wishes of the 52% to be implemented in anything like the form that was promised by the Leave campaign”

    This is the most problematic part of your letter.

    I honestly don’t see how you can find that remotely problematic. It is true that people’s wishes to leave the EU can be implemented by a no-deal exit — but not to leave “in anything like the form that was promised by the Leave campaign”. All the things we were promised — £350M a week for the NHS, sunlit uplands, having our cake and eating it, frictionless trade, a soft Irish border — turn out simply not to be available. So the situation is analogous to reading a menu in a restaurant, ordering pan-fried duck with foie gras and a port jus, then having a plate of spam brought to the table. Of course you might decide “I just wanted to eat, that’ll do”. But you might very well say “That’s not what I ordered”. The People’s Vote(*) is the opportunity for us as a country to decide whether we’re hungry enough to eat the spam, or if we want to reject it as an unacceptable substitute for what we ordered.

    I don’t know a single person who voted Remain because of the Remain campaign. Do you?

    (I assume this was a typo for “I don’t know a single person who voted Leave because of the Leave campaign. Do you?”.)

    I don’t know a single person who says they voted Leave because of the campaign. But then I also don’t know anyone who says that their buying is influenced by advertising (me included!), but the existence of a $600 billion advertising industry says different. If there’s one thing we know about humans, it’s that we’re really good at rationalising our reasons for having done whatever we’ve done.

    The bottom line here is that the nation was sold a peach, and has been delivered a lemon? Do we want the lemon? We don’t know. So we need to find out.

    (*) “People’s Vote” is a stupid name, but we seem to be stuck with it.

  3. (Maybe I should have said all that in the letter to Mark Harper! But I wanted to keep it short.)

  4. No – I meant what I wrote. I was trying to contrast with the Remain position. I voted Remain but I certainly didn’t do it because of the lacklustre official campaign. If that campaign (which used all the resources of Whitehall, not to mention constant EU propaganda spending) had been shown to have gone over a limit, or the type of Remain I was getting (e.g. predicted federal superstate) was *arguably* not the one presented – then Leavers might well have sent the same letter you did. I WOULD BE LIVID. Nobody gets to speak for what’s in my mind – nobody says “well, the Remain voters were gullible, or we have decided they didn’t know what they want, or they really want something else, or they’re not getting my interpretation of what they were promised, or I know better” – that’s arrogant presumption *at best*, and a straight lie at worst. I would have been even more furious if the second referendum was called a People’s Vote, in a transparent effort to hoodwink me into believing it was being held in my own interests and was also designed in order to split my vote. Additionally the people organising the second referendum would be bound by no campaign costs, ironically. So at this point I’m loading up my shotgun (I probably need to purchase a shotgun for this analogy)

    Let’s put it this way – if the Leave campaign had been four blokes dressed in clown costumes, a marching band and a pie eating contest who promised me free lesbian hookers and cocaine, it would have been a shit campaign and a lie. Leave might still have won. What on god’s green earth does the Leave campaign have to do with re-running the vote? What if there was no Leave campaign at all? You are using them as a fig leaf. We don’t, and never have, decided we think a vote is invalid based on the quality of bullshit that politicians come up with. This all smells horrible, and I’m outraged on behalf of democracy, not to mention anybody I know who feels their vote is about to be overturned. Democracy is a billion times more important than our membership of a customs union, no matter how profitable and forward looking it might be. We remainers have to take our licks, because the planned alternative is much worse.

    Maybe I am influenced by campaigns – but so the hell what? You can’t prove to what extent. I get a free vote, as best as can be organised, and I march into the polling booth as an agent of democracy – free to cast my vote in whatever way I choose, with the fantastically complex cocktail of influences that make up my life at my back. The campaign is not the outcome. The map is not the territory. <begins to splutter into his Gin and Tonic, visions of Churchill and Wellington at his side, King Arthur rising from his grave, Excalibur in hand etc. etc. )

  5. I was on the fence about how to vote in the referendum until I saw the absolute contempt with which the EU treated David Cameron when he tried to renegotiation the UK’s relationship.

    Specifically the ‘brake on immigration’ that we would have had to apply to the EU for permission to use.

    Now, I’m pro-immigration and I don’t think the brake would have been needed or used. but the very idea that a proud sovereign country like the UK shoul dhave to ask permission of some foreign parliament to change its own domestic policy — even to change it in a way I personally disagree with — well, that’s utterly unacceptable.

    With that the EU proved that it wasn’t interested in any real rolling-back of its powers. The non-binding promise to insert non-binding language in some future treaty change maybe about the UK not being subject to ‘ever-closer union’ (which the ECJ would no doubt brush away just as it brushed away the UK’s opt-outs form the Lisbon Treaty) merely rubbed salt in the wound.

    So indeed, the Leave campaign had nothing to do with my vote, which was decided in February 2016, before anythign was printed on the side of any bus. And therefore the fact that whatever the Leave campaign promised or didn’t promise is or isn’t available is irrelevant.

    If there is a second referendum, of course, Leave will win again, with an even bigger margin, because people will see that this is the EU trying to bully us into staying. But the people calling for the second referendum won’t respect that result either, because they — by definition — don’t respect the results of votes that don’t go their way.

    So the whole thing would be an expensive farce that would just leave us right back where we are now.

  6. Damn that was long. I should have gone with “The people never get what the politicians promise. We don’t rewind those votes, so why this one? P.S. Democracy forever!”

    Would have been a bit pithier

  7. @rjubber, I’ve evidently not explained this at all well. It’s really nothing to do with the Leave campaign as such, and I probably shouldn’t have mentioned it at all. (I did say “We can leave aside the multiple findings of outright illegal behaviour by the Leave campaign — this is irrelevant at the moment.”)

    To me, it’s a simple case of not getting what you voted for. Let’s try this analogy instead: suppose in the next General Election only two parties stood, Labour and Conservative. And suppose Labour won. Now suppose that all the Labour MPs said “Actually we’ve all defected to the Lib Dems, so you’ll be getting a Lib Dem government instead of the Labour one we offered you”. I think you would rightly be more than a little miffed. In that case, the only reasonable thing to do would be to hold a new election, this time presenting the options that actually exist: Conservative or Liberal Democrat. That’s what I want regarding the Leave/Remain referendum.

  8. To me, it’s a simple case of not getting what you voted for

    But; we voted to leave the European Union. That was the only question on the ballot paper. The other stuff — ‘£350M a week for the NHS, sunlit uplands, having our cake and eating it, frictionless trade, a soft Irish border’ — wasn’t on the ballot paper. No one voted for, or against, it.

    As long as we leave the European Union, we get what we voted for.

    Nobody, really, cares about the other stuff. Remainers only care that we stay; Leavers only care that we leave.

  9. @H, your situation is rather different as it you actually wanted to leave — unlike rjubber, who wanted to remain but feels that the referendum result has to be pursued. I won’t get into the details of your own reasons for reaching your conclusion, beyond noting that the Independent’s summary of what Cameron wanted and got doesn’t seem a particularly close match for your interpretation. But I will say this:

    The Leave campaign had nothing to do with my vote, which was decided in February 2016, before anythign was printed on the side of any bus. And therefore the fact that whatever the Leave campaign promised or didn’t promise is or isn’t available is irrelevant.

    That would only be a valid conclusion if everyone decided how to vote before the campaign. But if in fact you form a hard core of (say) 30% of people who had already decided Leave, and another 30% had already decided Remain, then that still leaves a great rump of 40% of people who were swayed to a greater or lesser extent by the specific promises that were made. So as an argument against a People’s Vote, I don’t think it works at all.

  10. @H, I think this is rather disingenuous:

    We voted to leave the European Union. That was the only question on the ballot paper. The other stuff — ‘£350M a week for the NHS, sunlit uplands, having our cake and eating it, frictionless trade, a soft Irish border’ — wasn’t on the ballot paper. No one voted for, or against, it.

    One might just as well say of a General Election that we voted for the Conservative party. That was the only question on the ballot paper. The other stuff — ‘lower taxes, and end to the deficit, sacrificing civil liberties to enhance security’ — wasn’t on the ballot paper. No one voted for, or against, it.

    But of course we always vote that way we do precisely because of such “other stuff”. At least, I hope we do, since the only other option is pure tribalism.

  11. But if in fact you form a hard core of (say) 30% of people who had already decided Leave, and another 30% had already decided Remain, then that still leaves a great rump of 40% of people who were swayed to a greater or lesser extent by the specific promises that were made

    And is there any reason to think this is the case? Can you peer into mens’ and womens’ souls, thereby to discern their motivations and what factors led them to make up their minds, and when?

  12. One might just as well say of a General Election that we voted for the Conservative party. That was the only question on the ballot paper. The other stuff — ‘lower taxes, and end to the deficit, sacrificing civil liberties to enhance security’ — wasn’t on the ballot paper. No one voted for, or against, it.

    Except that being a conservative implies that stuff. That’s what it means to be the Conservative party. ‘Conservative Party’ is just a shorthand for ‘lower taxes, and end to the deficit, sacrificing civil liberties to enhance security’ (well not that last one, actually, the Conservative party is the one which traditionally upholds civil liberties, but lay that aside for the moment).

    Leaving the European Union doesn’t necessarily imply any of the stuff you mentioned. It just means leaving the Europpean Union. That’s all. Everyoen knew that voting to leave might mean the end of frictionless trade with the EU, for example, the Remain campaign kept telling us so. Nobody can claim that they didn’t know that, and we voted Leave anyway.

  13. @H:

    And is there any reason to think this is the case?

    Those specific numbers? No, of course not. But I think there is every reason to think that there was a rump of voters, of some size, who were there be swayed by the specifics of the Leave and Reamin visions that were presented. Really, if not, why did anyone bother campaigning? Why does anyone ever bother campaigning? Precisely because they know that people will vote not only according to predecided loyalies, but also according to the specific issue.

  14. @H: to take the side-issue separately …

    (well not that last one, actually, the Conservative party is the one which traditionally upholds civil liberties, but lay that aside for the moment).

    Here, I was generalising from Theresa May’s time as Home Secretary. I agree that Labour has also been bad on this, maybe worse, and I think we can put this aside as a digression that we don’t really disagree about.

  15. @H, I now can’t quite tell what your argument is:

    Leaving the European Union doesn’t necessarily imply any of the stuff you mentioned. It just means leaving the Europpean Union. That’s all. Everyoen knew that voting to leave might mean the end of frictionless trade with the EU, for example, the Remain campaign kept telling us so. Nobody can claim that they didn’t know that, and we voted Leave anyway.

    Are you arguing that people voting Leave did know what it entailed and didn’t care? Or that they didn’t know and didn’t care?

  16. I think we can put this aside as a digression that we don’t really disagree about.

    I suspect we do really disagree about it, actually, but it is a digression.

    Are you arguing that people voting Leave did know what it entailed and didn’t care? Or that they didn’t know and didn’t care?

    I’m arguing that they knew the possible consquences (possible because nothing was certain: there was still the possibility the EU would negotiate in good faith, although it didn’t turn out that way) and they made their decision on that basis.

    On the basis of the exact same information that you had available to you when you made your decision.

    Why then should their decision be regarded as less valid than yours?

  17. Oh, and the article in The Independent agrees with me one hundred per cent:

    ‘But what he did get was a complicated (and rather ingenious) idea of an emergency brake where a member state could apply to the Commission for permission to suspend benefit payments if they were placing too much burden on the social services of a member state.’

    that’s the UK having to apply to the EU Commission for permission to vary its domestic policy. Totally unacceptable. A country which has to ask permission of a foreign body to alter its domestic policy is no longer a sovereign country.

  18. I don’t think your analogy holds up. (Labour becoming Lib Dem would mostly just involve changing the colour of their stationery and more group hugs) The Leave campaign does not run the country after a referendum. They are nothing more than an advertising campaign for a bunch of loosely connected views. They also don’t need to exist for the vote to proceed, another problem with your analogy. You’re almost claiming that if there had been no Leave campaign at all, but leave had won, you wouldn’t now be supporting a second ref.. sorry, a People’s Princess. I’m not sure I buy that, if not of you, then of many people advocating this new vote.

  19. And if I have misunderstood again – and the Leave campaign is truly not the factor, then by “not getting what they voted for” – what are you referring to? What other promises were made, and by whom?

  20. My point is that who made the promises about what Brexit would be like is not important here. The important thing is that those promises were made, and that many people voted on the basis of those promises rather than of the reality. I’m talking about this kind of thing:

    Bangladeshi Caterers Association Secretary General Oli Khan […] slammed Brexit politicians he says misled the curry trade into supporting the Leave campaign in 2016 with “lies” and unrealistic false promises.

    “We were misled and induced to mobilise 150,000 workers from restaurants across the country to support the Leave campaign,” Mr Khan revealed.

    “Pro-Leave politicians promised us the world, with more cooks from South Asia through relaxed visa rules, a clampdown on undocumented workers and lower salary thresholds to hire overseas staff.

    “We were promised that Brexit would rebuild communities and protect businesses—but it’s clear that was all a farce, that we were misled.”

    Note that he doesn’t say who misled them — because that’s not important here. This isn’t a blame game. The point is that he and his 150,000 restaurant workers believed Brexit would be one thing when they voted for it, and now know that it’s a different thing.

  21. The point is that he and his 150,000 restaurant workers believed Brexit would be one thing when they voted for it, and now know that it’s a different thing.

    It sounds to me like what he’s cross about is not the principle of leaving the EU, but May’s capitulation. Which I think a lot of Leave voters would agree with.

    Perhaps we should have a referendum: May’s deal, or leave with no deal? That wouldn’t be a re-run by people who didn’t like that the vote didn’t go their way the first time, it would be an honest new question on a new situation and would give people like the restaurant workers the chance to have their say over how we should leave the EU.

  22. That’s an entertaining notion and a good idea.

  23. @H:

    Perhaps we should have a referendum: May’s deal, or leave with no deal? That wouldn’t be a re-run by people who didn’t like that the vote didn’t go their way the first time, it would be an honest new question on a new situation and would give people like the restaurant workers the chance to have their say over how we should leave the EU.

    This is an admirably neat of trolling; but as you well know it doesn’t come close to addressing the situation. The restaurant workers, now understanding what leaving the EU means, don’t want to do it at all — with or without a deal. So your proposed referendum to “give people like the restaurant workers the chance to have their say over how we should leave the EU” doesn’t give them a way to say what they actually want.

  24. You don’t know what they actually want. You don’t know what they now understand. The only thing we have to go on is how they (apparently) voted originally, according to their block voting spokesperson. Can we have do-overs for all our other votes?

    I voted for David Mellor in the 1990s because I met him at the height of his scandal, and felt sorry for him. I think that was a wasted vote, especially with hindsight. I’d like another shot at it please.

  25. OK, so your attitude to the restaurant workers is “Too late, had your chance, muffed it”. I guess at least that’s consistent.

  26. OK, so your attitude to the restaurant workers is “Too late, had your chance, muffed it”.

    How did they muff it? They gave their view on the question they were asked; it is now up to the government to implement that view.

    The restaurant workers didn’t muff anything.

    Unless your attitude to the restaurant workers is, ‘They were stupid and gullible and voted the wrong way so now they must be made to vote again and do it properly this time’. Is that it?

  27. @H Mr Khan says that those restaurant workers voted en masse for Leave, and that they were persuaded to do so by his organization, and that his organization was persuaded that they should do so because the Leave campaign said “If we leave the EU then X and Y and Z will happen” and they wanted X and Y and Z, and that he now thinks they were terribly misled because those were never actually going to be consequences of leaving the EU. Mike thinks that if that’s true, then very likely many other people were similarly misled, and that if a substantial fraction of the electorate was so misled then they were in effect voting for something that was never really on offer, and that if that’s the case then there should be another vote now that it’s clearer what actually is on offer.

    Passing over the largely irrelevant question of whether you or Mike or anyone else has a bad attitude towards Bangladeshi restaurant workers: What parts of that do you actually disagree with?

    E.g., do you think it can ever be the case that voters have been so badly misled that a new vote after the truth has become clearer is appropriate? If so, what sort of situation would justify that and how would it differ from the present one?

  28. Mr Khan says that those restaurant workers voted en masse for Leave, and that they were persuaded to do so by his organization

    So these restaurant workers had no agency of their own? They are simply mindless drones who would have voted whichever way Mr Khan told them to?

    Passing over the largely irrelevant question of whether you or Mike or anyone else has a bad attitude towards Bangladeshi restaurant workers

    Actually let’s not pass over that: it’s the core of the issue. And I think anyone who thinks that Bangladeshi restaurant workers are either mindless drones who just vote the way they are told, or are gullible enough that they were taken in by lies that people like those calling for them to vote agan saw through because you’re so much smarter than them, has a pretty bad attitude towards Bangladeshi restaurant workers.

    do you think it can ever be the case that voters have been so badly misled that a new vote after the truth has become clearer is appropriate?

    I suppose it’s possible. It’s not the case we find ourselves in now, though. There are no new facts have been uncovered: everything the Remainers are saying now (there’s be an economic catastrophe, etc etc) is exactly the same stuff they were sayign during the Referendum. They’re just annoyed that voters didn’t listen then, but what makes them think voters will listen this time to the same tune they ignored last time?

  29. No, I don’t think the restaurant workers are mindless drones, and nothing I have said implies that they are, and I dislike the attempt to shift the discussion from the issue actually at question to which of the people in this discussion has the nastiest attitude toward restaurant workers.

    If what Mr Khan says is correct (which of course it might not be) then a large number of his organization’s members were “mobilised” to vote Leave by his organization. By definition that means that they likely wouldn’t have done it without his organization’s efforts, and that they did do it as a result of those efforts. That doesn’t require them to be mindless drones; it could be (among other possibilities) that his organization deployed arguments that they found very persuasive, or that it threatened to do something very bad if they didn’t vote, or that it bribed them to vote.

    Again, Mr Khan might be mistaken, or lying, or exaggerating. Or he might be talking only about that subset of his organization’s members who said they voted because of its efforts (I’m guessing that if you try to “mobilise” 100k+ people to vote, you also make some effort to track what happened as a result). But sometimes people persuade other people to do things, and thinking that that happens (sometimes on a large scale) doesn’t mean thinking that any of the people involved are or were mindless drones.

    I’m not making any comparison between (all or some) people who voted Leave and (all or some) people who voted Remain. It doesn’t matter a damn what I did or didn’t see through. What Mr Khan is saying, and what Mike is suggesting happened more broadly than that, is that many people were misled. Are you saying it’s some kind of arrogant paternalism to say that perhaps many people were misled when a bunch of people are saying “hundreds of thousands of us were misled”?

    Note that Mike’s argument is stronger the less gullible the people in question were. If a bunch of idiots are taken in by transparent lies, one can reasonably say “oh well, that’s what happens”. If a bunch of intelligent and reasonable people look carefully at the facts available to them and make a reasoned decision and it subsequently turns out that those “facts” were entirely wrong then, regardless of whether the wrongness was because of deliberate misinformation or honest error or just not being able to predict the future, you now have a situation where it’s likely that many of those people’s intentions are no longer accurately described by the votes they cast when their understanding of the facts was radically different.

    It’s flatly untrue that there are “no new facts”. We have, now, a pretty good idea of the terms on which it is possible for the UK to leave the EU. Back in 2016 that was all up for grabs, different people were making very different claims about it, and in particular a lot of prominent Leave campaigners made confident predictions that were very different from how things have actually turned out. The knowledge we have of how the negotiations actually turned out are, precisely, new facts.

  30. By definition that means that they likely wouldn’t have done it without his organization’s efforts, and that they did do it as a result of those efforts. That doesn’t require them to be mindless drones; it could be (among other possibilities) that his organization deployed arguments that they found very persuasive, or that it threatened to do something very bad if they didn’t vote, or that it bribed them to vote.

    I assume you’re not claiming that there was actually extortion or bribery going on, so we need only address the ‘persuasion’ part.

    Each of those people that Mr Khan’s organisation was trying to ‘mobilise’ is, if not a mindless drone, then an independant person with free will and the ability to weigh up arguments and come to a conclusion. During the campaign, and for many years beforehand, they will have been receiving information and arguments from a variety of sources, weighing them up, and coming to a conclusion.

    If they decided to vote to leave the EU, we must give them the credit of assuming they did so having weighed up the arguemnts from both sides, and decided on the basis not only of which side they believed but also of how valuable they weighed the arguments (for example, some people may have believed the arguments that we would be worse off but thought that a price worth paying for leaving the EU).

    They were not exposed only to the arguments from Mr Khan’s organisation, and if they found the arguments made by that organisation persuasive then that is because the arguments were persuasive.

    If Mr Khan has changed his mind — and he is the only one who we know who apparently has — then that doesn’t mean that anyone else who found those arguments persuasive then doesn’t still find them persuasive now.

    We have, now, a pretty good idea of the terms on which it is possible for the UK to leave the EU.

    And they are pretty much exactly what the Remain campaign was saying back in 2106: ‘we’ll end up rule-takers or we’ll crash out with no deal’.

    There were other possible options too, of course, which have since become either impossible or unlikely (the EFTA option, for example, which would probably have been my preferred outcome) but no one can say that they voted in 2016 not knowing that ‘no deal’ was a possibility, and that, if they voted Leave, they were happy with that possibility.

    So everyone voting Leave back then was aware that those were among the options and voted Leave in that knowledge. So these are not new facts. They were the facts in 2016 and they are still the facts now.

    And if there was another referendum, Leave would win it again, and Remainers would find some other reason to claim it was invalid and that we should have to vote again until we get the result they want, and we’d have spent a lot of money and put the country through a campaign so bitter and divisive that it would make the last one would look like a lover”s tiff, just to end up in the exact same place we are now.

    The only solution is to enact the result — Leave the EU — and then those who want to do so are free to start the campaign to rejoin. Who knows, maybe in 2030 we’ll be having another referendum on rejoining.

  31. I mean, I’d agree with you if there was any evidence that millions of people who had voted Leave had changed their minds and now wished to Remain.

    But there is no evidence of that. there are a couple of polls that suggest maybe Remain support has edged ahead of Leave and the result might be 52%/48% the other way now, but (a) there are other polls showing no change, so there’s no consistent picture, and (b) before the referendum polls were also showing a Remain win, and we know what happened there.

  32. Pingback: Third try: writing to my MP about Brexit | The Reinvigorated Programmer

  33. Pingback: A response from my MP on Brexit | The Reinvigorated Programmer

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.