Dear Sir,
Re: The (appalling) letter from Clive Taylor-Sholl and the one from Alastair PG Welsh.
Rather than rant about ‘the will of the people’ and ‘losers’, might these correspondents consider for a moment just why our MP supports a vote on the Brexit outcome.
Do they really believe there is nothing more to it than ‘deliberately ignoring the will of the people’ for its own sake? Have they considered that Phil Wilson may just have a little bit more insight than most into the processes of trade etc, which allows him to conclude that a hard Brexit would be massively harmful for the UK as a whole and, in particular, for his constituents? Even Jacob Rees-Mogg is on record as stating that the UK might not see benefits from a hard Brexit for 50 years.
Whilst there was a majority vote to leave the EU, it was not overwhelming. Given that-
(a) the benefits of leaving the EU were not accurately reported during the referendum;
(b) we now know a lot more about the difficulties and consequences of leaving;
(c) politicians find themselves unable to take a united position on it; then a second vote cannot be deemed to be undemocratic.
Yours faithfully
Eileen Brewis
