Last night, we suffered a tempete or severe storm for about 6 hours.

It reeked havoc in the region of Europe that I am in, but it also marked the end of a very long hot summer here. 

More ominously, the storm is heading for the UK and will no doubt add its own particular brand of chaos to the towns and communities across the country. 

As if life were not already difficult for our peoples, we are also now exiting a phoney war raging since the 24 June; we are experiencing a new life and a new set of fears some 12 weeks after the EU Referendum. 

Since the result was declared, the majority of Remain voters and I suspect a good proportion of Leave voters, have experienced shock, disbelief and annoyance that they were manipulated and lied to.

There have been plenty of commentators leaping to the fore on how this or that will work, but in the end, comment is useless, unless you can determine a plan, an idea, a methodology.

One thing is clear however, the country has been had and is now told that we must embark on a glorious path, a revolutionary path - an experiment in freedom!

As the period of our National mourning or rejoicing is now almost over, I write to you, in particular, to the Young People of our country, to offer my very sincere apologies for the great harm that has been caused to you, by a good number of the 50plusers age-group.

It is clear that a good number under 35 years of age, voted not out of fear of the unknown, but they voted through optimism and a strong desire to enjoy the lifestyle that many of their parents had enjoyed over many decades; you are the New Europeans - you are the 48%! 

I too am an European, maybe not one that is ‘new’, but one that has been committed to the ideal all of my adult life, so there was no conflict for me between nation state and a greater vision. My life has benefitted from being an European Citizen, so why not my children and grandchildren and all who have a long life ahead of them?

Despite an adult life as an European Citizen, it has not been without playing an active part in the European process. My work for Consumers has led me to experience how law is made in Europe and to engage with top industrialists and politicians. Europe represents a dynamism and a willingness to find a way forward, but I would also confess, Europe is not without its frustrations, but is that any reason to walk away when so many people have enjoyed the changes that affect their daily lives?

Whatever you may feel of the vote it is I believe important to acknowledge the people who voted to ‘leave'. 

I suspect that many of them are decent people and very likely decided on how to vote because of how politicians apparently represented their fundamental issues or beliefs; it is simply the case that I disagreed with their position, partly out of my life’s experience of being an EU Citizen and partly because of my professional engagement in Europe.

It appears that one source of frustration may come from how communities in the UK have felt disconnected or perhaps even considered that they were under threat. 

When you examine the issues that concern our fellow UK Citizens, these are not matters in which the European Union has the ability to apply a direct solution, these were and remain issues that come under the direct control of our UK parliamentarians; our sovereign parliament; Westminster never had nor never will have a hiding place from these concerns!

Poverty, unemployment, migration, resources, all come under the direct control of the UK parliament, but instead, throughout the EU Referendum Campaign, our politicians chose to hide their own failures to our fellow UK Citizens, under the guise of austerity and 'it's all Europe's fault'. It was they who created a polarised debate - it was they who lied to the British people!

I will give you an example of a National failure. 

When the floods affected York and other parts of the UK, there was an outcry about failures in flood management and the need for economic help. 

Our government; our 'Euro-friendly' Prime Minister could have called upon the EU Solidarity Fund to obtain large sums of cash to help those in the affected areas. The UK government did not apply for this money; our Prime Minister instead chose rhetoric, aided by a reactive media, only to eventually provide some financial assistance through the UK taxpayers pockets; perish the thought that he could have asked a European fund for help! 

It led me to question at the time whether he was really engaged on the question of Europe or whether he was just really like the rest; Euro-sceptic?

When I first read the EU Referendum result, I was on a ferry approaching the coast of France. 

My first reaction was this; how does this result give comfort to either side of the EU Membership argument? 

How could you possibly argue, on such an important constitutional question, that the arguments of the 'Outers' and 'Iners' had succeeded; was there any real discussion or argument about Europe; did our National media fail us; was our voting system at fault?

As I descended to the lower deck to reach my car, I witnessed groups of English people, gathered together, talking about the Referendum result, clearly shocked, with some of them in tears; all of these people were what I call the 50plusers, so please, do not condemn the entirety of this age-group - there were many who also believed in the way that you and I do.

Since this result, I have offered very little opinion and have experienced a certain amount of trolling by some people saying that I shouldn’t be a ‘sore loser’; as we have seen in the following weeks, pragmatism has been replaced by an uncompromising absolutism! 

With dismay, I have however seen people ridiculed for their continuing ‘Remain’ belief and told not to be so ‘bitter’, ‘move-on’ and how the 'Remoaners' must now ‘work together' for the good of a Nation; absolutism without intellect?

I have watched one black colleague make the point, time and time again, that in his view, some within the Leave campaign had expressed racist views. The reaction to him has been sad to witness; outrage has been expressed by some at his views which has no doubt made my colleague feel uncomfortable, and some, in the same breath following their protest, have provided a less than appropriate set of comments about the Scots, Irish and some Polish Builders! 

In the aftermath of the result, we have seen the rise of racial incidents in the UK followed by some apparent injuries and death. This result has delivered the additional bonus of even more fractured Communities with some fearing the rise of fascism. 

Ever since this wretched Referendum was announced, I have listened to one commentator after another throw out one ‘fact’ after another, describing a country and an European Union I did not recognise; what I wondered had we become?

Boris Johnson, the chief architect of the 'Leave' campaign continued with the themes of insult and ‘land of hope and glory’, by referring to the period following the vote as a form of 'contagious mourning' and how we must all accept the inevitability of our fate and then he was appointed the UK's Foreign Secretary! Rich!

Nigel Farage, the man of the hour, left the stage as the curtain was falling, only to apparently reappear in a moustachioed role at the German Embassy and later, freshly shaven, on the start of his Global Tour for Freedom with that great champion of the people, Donald Trump.

But since the 24 June we are told, this is all about democracy. 

The cry of the brexiteers is that you have to accept the will of the people; the majority. 

I don’t think that you or I would disagree with that, but let’s examine this point further.

If for example, we held a Referendum to ask the British people whether they would agree to using their tax money to provide free care for the elderly in care homes, I have no doubt that the vast majority would agree with the result and it would be appropriate to construct such a Referendum on a 'first past the post' straight majority basis.

In this case, we were asked to make a decision on important Constitutional issues. 

In my care home analogy, a simple 18+ years of age, first past the post vote is entirely appropriate, but is the same a good model for questions on the very structure of our external relations and how our society has been changed by one of the greatest International Treaties we have engaged in? 

I think that this Referendum was run at the wrong time; the government could have waited until 2017; it could have waited for the outcome of the French and German elections which apparently is now part of the strategy! 

I also believe that the question was poorly drafted; simplicity is no replacement for a seasoned and thoughtful debate and analysis, but even better, a plan proven by fact?

In my view, the Nation was not ready to decide; the people of the UK were living in a desert of fact from which our peers at Westminster had directed National thinking. How do I know? Well, its only an indication, but I spoke to a young person and asked them what they could tell me about their understanding of EU Law. They thought for a few moments and offered: “Well, the EU make their laws and we make ours” - how could we possibly accept that the UK was ready to vote in the face of such innocent ignorance?

I believe that many of the concerns of those in the Conservative Party or perhaps the 'Kippers' could have been dealt with by full engagement, along with clear open and honest campaigning within the European Union, after all, we are quick to help build a coalition for war, but not it seems a coalition for peace. 

However, the most disenfranchised sector of the population in this Referendum was the 16 to 17 year olds. It was frankly an astonishing decision not to include this important group of people when they were included to deal with another Constitutional issue.

Think back to the Scottish Referendum on Independence from the UK; did the young people of Scotland disgrace themselves on such an important issue? Of course they didn't, but, here is the important point; they delivered a shock to the UK establishment on such a close run vote; perhaps this is why our Leaders in London chose to disenfranchise this important group - perhaps the consensual Westminster game has always been designed to get us out of the European Union?

But let's stick with democracy; in effect, on Friday 24 June 2016, the UK government fell and the Official Opposition was and remains in disarray - in one foul stroke, the country was rendered rudderless. 

But what did our Leaders do? They told us, the people, to sit back and wait for them to engage in their own ‘democracy’. Then, they told us that the compact created with only 24% of the UK electorate in 2015, is now going to change! So, when a 'Leaver' talks about democracy, which version are they talking about?

Are they talking about the 199 MPs who supported Theresa May's 'election', nay, ‘Coronation', which represents a democratic total of 0.0004% of the entire UK electorate? 

And before the 50plusers reading this go all indignant on me, let's heed her sage words in 2007, when Gordon Brown's own 'Coronation' followed the demise of Tony Blair. You could find yourself agreeing with her words when she stated:

"Whenever Gordon Brown chooses to call a general election, we will be ready for him. He has no democratic mandate. He has a reputation tainted by his failures after a decade in office. And now he has no new ideas. An early election? Bring it on"

So what's different now; did she excel herself during her tenure at the Home Office?

Where is her mandate? Instead, life post 24 June has delivered only confusion, dispute between Ministers and living in the eternal optimism of brexitland that all our problems will be over in 2 years time!

Surely we should have an election; what about a Referendum on what may or may not be agreed with our European Partners - wouldn’t that legitimise their democracy?

But let's take this argument further.

I have been looking at the vote in the major population centres around the UK. In many areas it was close; some in favour of leave, some in favour of remain; whichever way you look at it, it was neither persuasive for one side of the argument or the other. What 'won' the vote was those who voted in the shires or the smaller towns and districts; areas that claimed to have been abandoned by the very politicians who crave for a 'return' of powers to demonstrate what they can do?

Then if we follow the argument that the 'majority' voted to leave and that's democracy and 'get over it', then we need to look at that position carefully.

Let's remember, we were not voting for some national infrastructural project or a change to tax laws; we were debating the 'Constitutional' framework of the UK and how in changing that, we change the very legal framework on which so much depends - it is about the way we work, how we are protected as Consumers, our environment, our desire to live in a regulated society.

Some argue that a ‘sovereign’ parliament can make up for this deficit; having lobbied for Consumers since 2005 in Westminster, I can absolutely assure you that will not happen (some campaigners have been lobbying for change on Carbon Monoxide for 35 years and still no action; no legislation!)

The direct question that should be asked and indeed, is being asked in Scotland; can it be right to look at a straight percentage difference in a vote for the whole of the UK, as the principal base for onward Constitutional decisions - does a small percentage difference actually resolve important constitutional issues?

Let’s reflect:

It is said that the UK voted 52% to 48% in favour of leaving the EU.

England voted 53.4% to 46.6% in favour of leaving the EU

Northern Ireland voted 55.8% to 44.2% in favour of staying in the EU.

Wales voted 52.5% to 47.5% in favour of leaving the EU.

Scotland voted 62% to 38% of remaining in the EU.

So, we have a situation whereby, England and Wales voted to Leave and Scotland and Northern Ireland, and, the Gibraltarians voted to Remain; are not the constituent parts of the UK just as important as the whole on Constitutional matters?

Have we not created the conditions of a Federal style UK where the constituent parts have won some constitutional changes; why are their majority views worth less?

If you follow the line of argument that disagrees with a simple percentage analysis on an important Constitutional issue, then logically you have to look at how the vote played in numbers.

What we know is this: 16,141,241 people voted to leave the EU and 16,141,241 people voted to remain in the EU.

In many respects I contend that these votes cancelled each other out; perhaps you will say an interesting analysis, but think on this, how many people interviewed before and indeed after the vote, friends and family, on opposite sides of the spectrum actually stated on camera that they would vote, but they offered, not my observation, that their votes were likely to cancel each other out; a bit like MP’s of different sides of the argument taking opposite views?

So, let’s consider whenever a vote is taken in Parliament; we don’t talk about 350 MP’s voting in favour of something, we concentrate on the numbers that created the majority, so for example, the current UK government enjoys a majority of 12 seats; why then on this referendum do we simply talk about 17 million votes and ignore those who opposed their position? Why do we ignore the constituent parts of the UK that voted to Remain; is their majority not also important? When a televised vote is presented, we hear the breakdown of the ‘ayes’ and the ‘no’s’, but the crucial number is always by how many one side of the other of the argument presents its majority.

Our ‘new’ Prime Minister, is becoming trapped by the 48%; she knows only too well, the vote does not offer the comfort claimed, no different to a small Majority in the House; how many times have we heard a government say, we have listened and will adapt our policy?

However, I want to concentrate on the majority issue.

The majority in numbers: in favour of leaving the EU was 1,269,501; not an isolated majority of 17,410,742 as some would have you believe, without any recourse to those who voted to remain or indeed the regional split!

Now consider this: in 2013, the UK population was stated to be 64.1 million people. Of that population, the registered electorate of the UK had fallen to 44,722,000 in 2015 by 1.3% from 2014.

Now within the 64.1 million citizens of the UK, there are estimated to be 1,985,971 young people between the ages of 16 to 18 years of age.

It was suggested that if the 16 to 17 year olds had been given the vote in the EU Referendum, 82% would have voted to remain. However, if we use the Lord Ashcroftpoll in the Scottish Referendum of 71% as our marker, we can perhaps see how the vote would have played out.

That analysis could suggest that,1,410,039 young people probably would have voted to remain in the EU; now play that number against the actual total of votes cast and immediately you have a different result; a result which I would be still saying is not convincing for the argument either way.

So, can it be right that the victorious 'leavers' can lay claim to a national morality, a legitimacy; can it be right that UK politicians can be so cavalier about the National intention to leave the EU;I do not think so?

This is dangerous political territory when it is clear that the UK is so split and the consequences of 'Brexit' is very likely going to have a major impact on all voters, whether you chose to vote leave or remain!

What I find shocking about this whole affair is the casual way in which democracy is hijacked to suit the needs of agenda and how the wishes of the people or the futures of our younger generations is simply dismissed; this is the not so great political experiment of our age!

What is equally shocking however is to witness the fatalism of my fellow citizens, consumer groups, campaigning groups and the media. 

All are 'accepting' of what our political masters are saying and have drilled down their response down to 'we must argue for the best case scenario’; really? What ever happened to a constructed analysis, debate and presentation and a challenge to the current version of democracy?

It has been interesting to see the growing legal opinion of this vote and how the facts were clearly misrepresented to the electorate, with some arguing that a deception has been committed against the British people; it raises the question surely of misfeasance in Public Office? 

This is a fair comment, because as quickly as condensation disappears, so too has the £350m per week along with other promises! Even now, there is a wide recognition that we cannot escape the four pillars that make up the single market; control on free movement of people is disappearing if we are to remain members of the single market. I think throughout the summer, the UK-set of politicians have begun to realise this and they are now in a cul-de-sac of their own making and we must suffer the consequences of their professional egos!

But the 'Leavers' keep telling you to heed democracy in action; they complain when you protest that you are somehow disrespecting democracy! It seems that this small majority, in the pursuit of national purity, have put their own narrow interests before the interests of the Nation; they are condemning the young people of our country to pay for this madness, for the rest of your working lives. 

This is an unpalatable contradiction, offered by the very same people, who only too recently advocated that we should not impose the 'folly' of our fiscal ways on future generations and required us to wear the badge of austerity for so many years - a badge that has affected every strata of UK life, including those areas deeply affected by the policies of austerity, quite possibly voting to leave the EU, all now but shadows in the mist, lost in the rhetoric of political populism.

Consensual conspiracy of our UK parliament is something we should also pay heed to. 

On the one-hand we have been 'governed' by a party that has in the past ripped themselves apart over Europe, led by a man I was never convinced wasn't fully Eurosceptic (if he was fully engaged in Europe, why did he allow the construction of the rules of this Referendum to flow as they did?). 

Then there is the Official Opposition. Led by a man whose whole life was dedicated to remove us from the EU but would now have you believe that he was a reformed character; why then did he call for the immediate presentation of the Article 50 letter on 24 June 2016; why does he advocate now for ‘some’ elements of the ‘Single Market’? 

Has this consensuality, this great political reformation led us into this Brexit cul-de-sac?

Consider the comments of David Davis MP; he is going to try and negotiate access to the single market for trade; no mention of other categories, such as consumers or workers. But the single market is about so much more than trade; it is about the people who access that very market and the rights they have accrued to ensure that such a market is operated fairly both for industry and consumers. Is this why they never spoke about consumers throughout the campaign; isn't the truth that they are about to create a regulation-free, a libertarian paradise for all?

In an unstable world, we are asking our young people to agree to this experiment; whether you are on the left or the right; I happen to think that we deserve better than experimental or Patriarchal Politics!

Since the 24 June, we have watched in awe at the breath-taking antics of UK Members of Parliament, who would have you believe that they are acting in your best interests; that they will do the very best for you. The goodwill toward MP's following the murder of Jo Cox MP has all but vanished in the space of 12 weeks.

Protests and a great national angst at disturbing the equilibrium of our society, has now led to lawyers, academics and business people to launch a legal action designed to ensure that the non-binding nature of the Referendum and Prime Ministerial Power is kept in check, so enforcing, what many have voted for, a Sovereign parliament; this is real democracy in action, not the absolutism of a simple campaign, with a simple result, on important constitutional matters. 

Commentators for 'Leave' now challenge the Members of Parliament not to defy the will of the people; I say, do be careful not to defy the will of the people; the 48% - half of the constituent parts of the country and the disenfranchised - don't take too much heart in your 1,269,501.

The haste and the urgency to legitimise the illegitimate by spin and determined comments and the weakness of those who should stand up for what is right, is done in the hope that we won't notice the great con practised upon the British people. They are hoping that in this phoney war, this long hot summer, that you will settle down, become more accepting, compliant; offer the path of least resistance.

These are just some of the reasons why I stand face-to-face against the hypocracy of my age-group; a group that has enjoyed the greatest standard of living ever enjoyed by Britons. They have demonstrated in the fat of their success how lazy they have become. 

If they had examined how Europe works, they would have discovered a dynamic that is expressed in our laws, political debate and action and the opportunity of personal contact, at the heart of which, is demonstrated by a vibrant society which actually cares about the world we all live in. 

Yes it is not perfect; yes, the Eurozone needs resolution, but following Nice and the existential threats to our societies both natural and man-made, this is not the time for separation, this is a time for unity; a time for a united Europe.

This decision has I believe made us a smaller Nation; a Nation so drunk on its own arrogance, it will be decades before we repair the damage created, if we allow this madness to continue.

For my part, I promise that I will join with your voice and work towards creating the conditions whereby the British conscience can recover and help deliver a just result to half of our country. I remain committed to the UK to being a full member of the EU. I will do what I can to help Consumers. I will stand next to my Muslim neighbour. I will argue for humanity for those escaping terror and injustice. I will stand for the European Convention on Human Rights. I will stand for Europe and how Britain is an integral part of its daily life.

If I am subsequently revealed to be behind the curve of history, then so be it, but if this decision is allowed to stand absolutely, then it will be the very people, who rebelled on a promise, who will pay the price; the ultimate betrayal!

With best wishes to you all for the future

Frank Brehany

14 September 2016

Frank Brehany – All Rights Reserved © 2016 (First Published on 14/9/16)