You brought brexit and the 48 in as an example of how divisive our society is.
Why not grooming gangs or hs2?

It's a firm choice when it's between two possible alternatives. It just wasn't my first preference.

Parliament didn't do it's duty. The Tories abrogated it by caving into the threat to their future from UKIP.

If Parliament had done it's duty what should have happened is this.

Every MP's duty is to decide what is best for their constituents,, and the country using their conscience alone.

Cameron should not have resigned. He had a majority and a Parliament which favoured remaining over leaving. Cameron himself (and his successor) included.

With such a close result he should have called for a period of reflection and consultation over what the result meant and how it was best to be implemented. Those consultations would obviously have included our partners in the EU.

During that time the evidence of the outside interference we know happened would have been reported to the Government, as it was, by the security forces. Information which has been considered by the Intelligence and Security Committee but whose report was suppressed by Johnson prior to the 2019 election and may now never see the light of day. If the leaks are true this raised serious concerns about the validity of the referendum result as it was so close.

If our politicians had some balls then they would have made that information public, gone to the EU with the result of the referendum in their pocket, demanded a better response on free movement and then called a new referendum on an improved offer.

So that was a balls up. Another happened last Autumn when Corbyn refused to do his duty and resign in the country's best interests so that the minority Tory government could be thrown out and replaced by the majority of the Parliament who wanted to go back to the people again.

So no, Parliament did not do it's duty. It failed to deliver what it believed was in our best interests.

Which is why I want referendum's consigned to history and PR introduced.

It won't happen yet. I am realistic enough to realise that, but it will in time, because it must.

Of course, and our's is the latter.

It's a firm choice when it's between two possible alternatives. It just wasn't my first preference.

Parliament didn't do it's duty. The Tories abrogated it by caving into the threat to their future from UKIP.

If Parliament had done it's duty what should have happened is this.

Every MP's duty is to decide what is best for their constituents,, and the country using their conscience alone.

Cameron should not have resigned. He had a majority and a Parliament which favoured remaining over leaving. Cameron himself (and his successor) included.

With such a close result he should have called for a period of reflection and consultation over what the result meant and how it was best to be implemented. Those consultations would obviously have included our partners in the EU.

During that time the evidence of the outside interference we know happened would have been reported to the Government, as it was, by the security forces. Information which has been considered by the Intelligence and Security Committee but whose report was suppressed by Johnson prior to the 2019 election and may now never see the light of day. If the leaks are true this raised serious concerns about the validity of the referendum result as it was so close.

If our politicians had some balls then they would have made that information public, gone to the EU with the result of the referendum in their pocket, demanded a better response on free movement and then called a new referendum on an improved offer.

So that was a balls up. Another happened last Autumn when Corbyn refused to do his duty and resign in the country's best interests so that the minority Tory government could be thrown out and replaced by the majority of the Parliament who wanted to go back to the people again.

So no, Parliament did not do it's duty. It failed to deliver what it believed was in our best interests.

Which is why I want referendum's consigned to history and PR introduced.

It won't happen yet. I am realistic enough to realise that, but it will in time, because it must.

I asked if you backed May's deal and you didnt

What part of me backing it in a straight fight between deal and no deal do you not understand?

because you thought brexit would be overturned.

Wrong. I didn't "think" that. I hoped for it and preferred that it would be. I didn't expect it.

Outside interference was by what means and by whom.

The security report will reveal that but my expectations are that the Russians were behind it, aided and abetted by Cambridge Analytica with Farage's fingerprints all over it.

Adverts on the net?

Not adverts. Internet memes and trolling which planted fake news and spread propaganda. If you think these are unimportant then you underestimate the power of social media these days. Trump doesn't use Twitter for no reason.

Give the public some credit.

I do. Do you? They deserve to know what's true and what isn't.

A choice was in or out end of.

That's just the typical attitude of the hardline leaver. It's about as reasonable, and true, as the "we won" attitude. As the events since 2016 showed very clearly it was far from such a clearcut choice. Asking one simple question to a set of complex problems was soon shown to be a huge mistake. A mistake that ought to have been acknowledged and dealt with by Parliament.

Out got more votes.

Just, in 2016 after a suspect referendum. By 2019, when people understood more, it seems the balance had shifted. That was ignored and the people's understandable frustration and boredom exploited.

The rest was always negotiable.

Negotiations always depend on what the objectives are and then on who is handling them. We weren't exactly blessed with much skill were we?

Anyhow this is about divisive issues and you again got your point on brexit on it.

Your choice to concentrate on Brexit. Not mine.