PICTURE OF THE DAY I am willing to speak out and provoke debate
HOW interesting that these pages, on separate days, had separate letters from separate people, but about the same subject.
Basically, the letters all challenged the outcome of the Referendum, implying that possibly it was not legal.
Well not exactly illegal, but was it valid, and did Parliament actually have to take any notice of the result? According to the letter writers, no!
As it is some four and half years since the Referendum, why are we only hearing about this now?
Why was this not raised then? Why were the Remainers not shouting this from the rooftops? Why was Parliament not immediately recalled to deal with this travesty of British justice?
Could it be that it is only being raised now, so that the Remainers can carry on their beefing, in a belated attempt to cover up the fact that the Referendum was one total farce from start to finish.
As well all know, it took place under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister, David Cameron, who was quite openly a Remain supporter.
But then, so were the vast majority of our elected representatives.
So dominant was the Remain support within Westminster, could anyone doubt for one second that the criteria for the Referendum would not altered, if the Remainers thought it necessary?
That they would ensure that no matter what the vote, they came out with the majority, possibly by the means so clearly stated in one of the letters. Of course, they would!
The reality was, of course, that Westminster was totally out of touch with the voting public.
It never dawned on them for one second that the vote would be to leave. So, their arrogance resulted in them doing nothing. So, when they awoke the next morning, it was too late for them to put right their major cock-up. Yes, that is right, the Remainers’ cock-up.
That is what this is all about. The Remainers were responsible for their own failings, but getting them to accept that is another matter. So much easier to blame the Leavers.
Oh, I don’t doubt that under certain circumstances, our unwritten constitution could be interpreted in such a manner, that a national vote could be looked on as being advisory, and need not be implemented.
However, just how realistic would such a decision be? Is it just one of those possible debatable points, that are so attractive in certain areas, but have no true basis in fact? An unprovable fact, in fact.
One of the great advantages of Mail Box, is that, within the constraints of the Editor, it allows people to comment upon views held by other people with their own view on the topic in question.
It is called freedom of speech. Sadly, it would seem that the letter writers I refer to in my opening paragraph, are not of the same opinion, though I concede that is also probably an unprovable fact.
By the way, I fully accept that if I insist on sticking my head above the parapet, I am openly inviting people to take a shot at it. If it leads to a subsequent debate on the subject, I consider it is worth the price.
Alan Richards,
Hull.