Let me offer some assistance to Armando Iannucci in his confusion about Brexit. (“Confused by momentous times? Me too. Let’s talk”, Comment, last week.)
Last night, I watched Lindsay Anderson’s 1982 film Britannia Hospital on TV. It reminded me of life in the 1970s, with its protest marches, strikes and the violence and anger that are absent from the political scene today. The vote to leave has enabled the “great unwashed” to annoy the “great and the good” big time, without a brick being thrown.
Polls show that it was older people who disproportionately voted to leave. These are the same people who went on anti-Vietnam war marches in the 1970s. They just don’t go on marches any more because of their arthritic knees. Brexit was nothing less than the revenge of the hippies.
John F Smith
Weybridge, Surrey
There are no shortages of opinions, judgments, convictions or advice from the UK media and public about Brexit and the way forward. Your editorial adds to the list.
I’m so stupid that I thought the decision was not in the UK’s gift, but that of the EU. I appreciate that the government is doing an excellent job in giving the impression that it is clueless about future plans.
Surely your editorial should have been about how we convince the EU that our “wish list”, in particular a soft Brexit, is acceptable.
Sadly, Mrs May and confused colleagues do not seem to realise the EU Santa Claus will not visit her. Indeed, 20 years of slagging off the EU has probably ensured a no-show from Santa. Let’s have a few more editorials explaining reality, not fantasy.
Peter Wardbooth
via email
Andrew Jukes (Letters, last week) evades what may be the key issue in the so-called Brexit referendum – the fact that a significant proportion of the UK electorate chose not to vote at all.
In these critical referendum issues we should seriously consider making voting compulsory. This is the case in Australia, where percentage turnout consistently reaches the high 90s.
We may reasonably ask: why should an abstaining third of the electorate be allowed to create such confusion?
David Browning
Huddersfield
A handful of barely known names panicking is hardly newsworthy (“Hard Brexit stance could lose us power, say top Tories”, News, last week). The Tories did not field a candidate at Richmond and, although they were unlikely to win, they did enjoy a 23,000 majority in the past under Zac Goldsmith.
By not bothering to field a candidate the seat was won by the Liberal Democrats, putting more resources into one byelection than they have probably ever done before, and obtaining a majority of under 2,000. Big deal. I wish people would actually consider something larger than their own egos when making these foolish appeals. Brexit is an opportunity to make some good changes for this country, and this fear-based rhetoric is tiresome.
Martin Sandaver
Hay-on-Wye
