However bad the situation is, it would not have been the case had not the vast section of the "Leave" itinerant hordes of voters who decided in their utter lack of infinite wisdom to ignore the question asked on the ballot paper cast their personal vote as a protest against:-
Immigration
Cameron
Immigration
"Tories" in general
Immigration
etc etc etc
If you give the numbskulls (you must have all seen a wide cross-section of these being interviewed in the street by the television media after the referendum) the chance to indulge in fantasied axe-grinding by having this referendum and then do not complain if you suddenly find that the lunatics are running the asylum...
The two words "reap" and "sow" seem to be tending to sit side-by-side at present.
You really honestly believe there are 17 million numbskulls in the country?
Just one numbskull is responsible for this mess. David Cameron. He was supposed to be his party's leader. Instead of sorting out the internal Conservative party problems over the EU question, he ducked out, fearful of party disunity. So he put the thoughts of party cohesion ahead of what was best for the country. Reap and sow indeed. Cameron planted the seeds and is responsible for the poor harvest.
The UK is a representative democracy with parliamentary sovereignty, not a plebiscite democracy. David Cameron has singularly failed to grasp that, giving the UK two of only three nationwide referendums ever held. Referendums have no place in the UK political system.
We elect our politicians to lead. To make the tough decisions on our behalf. Not to avoid making decisions. This referendum was just policy avoidance by David Cameron because he knows his party is split on the issue. Labour were little better.
What point is there in having politicians if it isnt to give clear answers to the great issues the country faces? What is the point in having politicians if they are unwilling to commit to a policy? If they aren't prepared to do so then there should be referendums on all manifesto pledges, on all great issues the country faces. Plebiscite for every major decision. Do we increase tax rates? Referendum. Do we go to war with Somewhereistan? Referendum. Do we cut the welfare budget? Referendum. Is David Cameron a dick? Referendum. Actually no. That last one is a given.
In or out of Europe should have been manifesto pledges.
"Vote for us and we will - keep you in/take you out - of Europe."
Former Conservative Minister Chris Patten (speaking ahead of a possible Euro Currency referendum in 2003 (praise be that Tony and Gordon saw sense and rigged the 'five tests')), sums up my feelings on referendums perfectly:
"I think referendums are awful. The late and great Julian Critchley used to say thatnot very surprisinglythey were the favourite form of plebiscitary democracy of Mussolini and Hitler. They undermine Westminster. What they ensure, as we saw in the last election, is that if you have a referendum on an issue, politicians during an election campaign say: "Oh, we're not going to talk about that, we don't need to talk about that, that's all for the referendum." So during the last election campaign, the euro was hardly debated. I think referendums are fundamentally anti-democratic in our system, and I wouldn't have anything to do with them. On the whole, governments only concede them when governments are weak."
Now, there was no, "None of the Above" on the voting sheet so I had to chose In or Out. I'd never not vote. I looked at all the arguments, waded through all the rhetoric, spin, bluster, lies, promises... and simply could not decide which outcome would be better for the UK. There were very complicated economic and socio-political outcomes to get a grasp of. I failed to do so. That does not however make me a numbskull.
So the only option I had left was vote such that it registered my discontent at there even being a referendum. That meant voting against the person who had called the referendum. Had David Cameron been a Brexiter I'd've probably voted remain.