Brexit - muddying the waters

FIVE months ago, the United Kingdom's electorate voted to leave the European Union (EU) - full stop. Sterling lost value and the stock markets increased. David Cameron resigned and Theresa May became Prime Minister, announcing that negotiations to leave would commence by the end of March 2017. So far, so clear.

The chattering classes then got in on the act, defining terms such as "soft" Brexit and "hard" Brexit - enraging voters, whose attitude is simply "what part of 'leave' do you not understand?" Parliament has been treated to a succession of ministers saying "Brexit means Brexit", a cause of hilarity to the nation, but the subject of endless discussion by politicians and their lackeys. Former prime minister Tony Blair and his ilk are pushing the view that the electorate did not know what it was voting for and there should be another referendum. This infuriates everybody, except the metropolitan elite. Us "leavers" can fully understand the vote for US President-elect Donald Trump - like him or not. The alternative here, and there, is despicable.

It is worth repeating the question that was put to the British public for the sake of clarity - the referendum paper said "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" and the alternative votes were "Remain" and "Leave". It was stated that Parliament "will abide" by the resulting decision.