I have to say, I was anti-EU because I don't believe that the EU represents its citizens well enough, and don't believe that the EU leaders even accepts this, let alone has any desire to correct it.
But I am under no illusion that the British system is any better. For most of my life I have been denied a voice in Westminster because of our "winner takes all" system.
So make no mistake, I am pro Brexit, I'd happily just let them get on with their lives, and wish them well, but I think that is only the start of the process. I want the UK to reform too. But that's just a view, and other people will vigourously defend First Past The Post.
What does perplex me is where people sit somewhere in the middle, in the sense that some votes are ok, but others are not. More specifically, it surprises me a little that when I hear parties quite happily talk about overthrowing the Brexit vote, or having another vote to overthrow the Brexit vote, what do they think will happen? For me, consistency has value - if we ignore the result of one vote, surely that means these people are advocating ignoring the result of every vote? Or, is this a special subject? What makes it special? And, even more importantly, who decides? You do, I suppose?
Especially in the wake of our local election results, I am very surprised that somebody can, in one breath, say "ignore the result" and, in the next, say "cast your vote for me", Why, if you want to ignore the result?
BEFORE YOU START: Please note that although I currently volunteer for both the Stroke Association and Age UK, the views expressed in this blog are strictly my own. I am not a spokesperson for either (or, indeed, for any) organisation. I am based in the UK and the blog therefore has a UK bias - I've tried to use the Glossary to explain any terms which might be ambiguous, but if you think there is anything I've missed, please message me. Lastly, you'll find typos here, although I do my best to correct them. There are reasons for this, which you'll discover as you read.