Letter: The public does not have a right to change its mind over Brexit vote

I am 76 and in every election I can remember there have been winners and losers – the majority vote being the winners – it is the British democratic process!

polling station ballot stock

There was nothing ambiguous about the referendum, nothing dubious, obscure, confusing or doubtful, it was a clear choice of stay in or get out.

The government clearly dispensed with detail, they could not spell out any dangers of leaving without also explaining the consequences of staying – staying to be controlled by unelected foreigners forever.

I voted out because I believe the majority of our MPs, MEPs, Peers of the Realm, Civil Servants, the BBC and the establishment in general have been bought and paid for by Brussels for many, many years and the referendum result indicates that many others thought the same.

Robin Lloyd of Ellesmere believes that the British public should be allowed to change it’s mind – it should not – it is a foolish notion – does he mean we keep on voting until we arrive at a result that suits him?

Robin’s maths is has poor has his politics, he agrees that the majority who voted in Shropshire voted to leave but he cannot find any.

I can tell him that Oswestry is full of them, the problem is that it is also full of EU members from Europe via the most totally foolish ‘Freedom of Movement’ policy you could ever imagine. It has turned our island into a multi-national meatball where nobody feels safe!

Bob Wydell, Oswestry

Send us your letters for publication:

Email us at starmail@shropshirestar.co.uk or write to: Readers’ Letters, Shropshire Star, Ketley, Telford, TF1 5HU. Letters MUST include the writer’s name, address and telephone number. Letters will only be published anonymously in exceptional circumstances. The editor reserves the right to condense or amend letters.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Comments for: "Letter: The public does not have a right to change its mind over Brexit vote"

R Suppards

Quite right. If losers in any serious decision-making process could upset and overturn the result just because they didn't like it, democracy would be dead.

Remainers must simply accept the fact they they lost the referendum.

Our ed

The argument isn't about who allegedly won or lost but how the process is carried out.

People tend to forget that bit whilst pointing their little mitts at johnny foreigner and or blaming all and sundry? Some sadly spouting their racist bile at the same time.

Ignoring the fact infrastructures need to cope with larger influxes of people is perhaps another argument.....


So you are saying that it is impossible for any decision to be reversed once it has been made, even if some people change their minds?

jim jams

Not ANY decision but certainly in the case of an election or referendum, that decision must stand for at least a term, usually 5 years for an election.

jim jams

If every cry baby started crying just after an election because the outcome didn't serve them, where would we be?

Cunning Linguist

Is the answer Austria?

thomas the tank

Close but no banana, it's Australia, the chaser has caught you, goodbye.

Cunning Linguist

...and the award for cramming the most stolen catchphrases into the shortest irrelevant sentence goes to........


Democracy is not a right free of responsibility. There are now endless reports of people who voted leave telling us they voted as a protest! That is not what democracy is about - it's about making a decision following research and careful thinking through the options and then making a choice which is recorded at the ballot box. People voted in this election having never voted before. They didn't vote in local and general elections because 'the parties are all the same'. Well join a political party and work to change it, start a new one or if that's too much effort write to your MP about everything that bothers you, make yourself a nuisance and turn up at their surgery. And if all of that seems too much hassle perhaps you should have exercised your vote in the last referendum. Remember it? It was about AV, a form of PR and the turnout was 42%. Yes 42%. Pathetic! Ask a few leavers in the pub why they didn't vote in that and they'll say they didn't understand it and how it would impact on British politics, and of course they couldn't be bothered to find out.

Do I sound angry? Well I should because I am. When a bunch of people, many of whom haven't bothered to involve themselves in democracy ever in their lives tell me the referendum was democratic and 'Remain lost - get over it', I have a right to be very very angry!


Sorry, Madamjam you are wrong the right to vote does not incur a responsibility to accept or even acquaint oneself with so called facts put up by one side of the debate.

It is up to those who campaign to get their message across "Remain" failed to convince with their message, so "Remain" lost get over it! Stop insulting those who voted against you because they did not do it from ignorance but because they disagreed with you.

Cunning Linguist

Leave won because of the lies. Where's the bus?


What a load of rubbish.

The democratic process is that the electorate decide at a particular time and at a future time they may decide something different.

To follow the writers argument there should not have been a referendum at all as the country had already decided in the past to join the EU.

jim jams

Some 40 years ago, have another referendum in 40 years if you want but I doubt if the EU will last half that long.


Absolutely right. For years, those of us who expressed alarm at the insidious encroachment of the EU upon our right to govern ourselves as an independent sovereign nation were labelled as "Little Englanders", but that that was simply an attempt to belittle, embarrass and silence us. The strident calls of some to flaunt traditional democratic process and keep voting are actually quite alarming because they reveal not just a disturbing intolerance for democratic convention, but also an inability to identify with the long established norms of our society. It amounts in my view, to a form of extremism.

Of course, for mentioning immigration, Bob will inevitably be labelled a "racist." That too, has become common practice, but as other contemporary news reports have highlighted today, it's a question not of race, religion or colour, but rather of numbers and the willingness to integrate and contribute rather than live in parallel societies and take advantage. Personally, I think the elephant in the room is our national water security. We think because it rains so much there isn't a problem, but the parlous state of our water supply grows worse year on year. We have no national grid and what happens when all the water companies have plugged all the leaks, but hundreds of millions of new homes require supplies that aren't there because they are running off of roof tiles and roads instead of soaking into the ground or being captured? There are big challenges ahead and we need to move on and begin tackling them..


How will leaving the EU allow us to do something about water distribution that we could not do now?


We have to apply EU water legislation rules on water management and companies presently, one assumes when we leave that will not be the case. So we will be able to do something about water distribution without having to apply EU rules.


But we expensively have to rewrite all the same rules. Still work for someone I suppose.


But which EU regs forbid the building of a national water grid? We have grids for electricity and gas.


Your question was "How will leaving the EU allow us to do something about water distribution"

You have just changed it to something else more specific.

As water comes under the auspices of the EU we tend to follow its rules when we leave that will no longer be the case.

Terry why do think we would have to write all the same rules would it not be the case that we would have rules that suited us internally rather than rules that suited 28 countries. There is also the case that the EU piles on a lot of ecological demands following those created a lot of the flooding a case in point for having control of those who make our laws.


I did make my question more specific because I didn't get a specific answer to the first version. As far as I can discover, the debate about a national water grid is one of costs and benefits. This being Britain, we don't rush such decisions. I cannot find any specific reference to an EU regulation that forbids the building of a water grid.

As is often the case, problems that we have failed to solve nationally are laid at the door of the EU.

There are plenty of examples in the press. Inadequate numbers of trained doctors, nurses and teachers (with the gaps partly covered by EU citizens). Tax avoidance by large companies, which our govt encourages. Payment of huge farm subsidies to large landowners, where our govt has blocked EU reform. Allocation of our fishing quotas to a handful of large boats with only a tenuous UK connection (isn't N Farage our man on the EU fish committee?). A House of Lords packed with nonentities. Failure to maintain our national expertise in nuclear power.

Just look at news items and ask how the EU is to blame for each specific problem. My experience is that you get general comments about EU rules but few people can actually cite details.

These are all things that we shall still have sort out or put up with if the Brexit foolishness continues. But it won't be possible to blame Brussels. And it will be all too obvious that the referendum result boosted the self-importance of a few but did nothingjk for most people.


Couldn't disagree more.

Firstly, the status of the referendum was advisory. This was clearly stated in both the UK constitution and in the briefing papers prior to the commons vote on the referendum act.

Secondly, with general elections we do get a chance to change our minds. We get to change them roughly every four years. If we believe we have made a mistake in voting in one party, we can change our minds and vote another lot in.

Thirdly, there was plenty of confusion and misdirection at the referendum. So much, the Electoral Commission has asked the investigation branch at the CPS to investigate the Leave campaign. The electoral commission told Leave not to use certain claims as they were criminally misleading. This included the £350 million bus claim and a leaflet sent round the North East claiming that Nissan supported Brexit when the opposite was true.

It is incredibly rare for the CPS to receive such a report from the Electoral Commission and it may well result in criminal prosecutions of the Leave activist who prepared and distributed the claims.

Many people voted leave on a false prospectus. They voted as a protest vote or on matters such as immigration to which our EU membership has a limited effect (as many people come to the UK from outside the EU as inside it).

We are in a situation where the government aren't even willing to tell their most senior diplomat in Brussels the outline plan for Brexit and said diplomat has accused government ministers of 'muddled thinking'. Code for the haven't got a clue about the complexity and detail of international trade and diplomatic negotiations.

I think people have every right to change their mind on an issue where it is becoming crystal clear that they were lied to.


I realise that many share your views, but I think you are naive. You don't appreciate the security that our society enjoys, you simply take it for granted and you will use the keyboard as others will use the courts, to seek to overturn the result of the referendum because you didn't like it, you can't accept it and your confidence makes you complacent. This however, was no general election, but a very long awaited opportunity that was seized upon by millions. It was almost accidental, but the consequences are seismic. I would prefer the difficulties and hardships of cutting our ties with the EU to a scenario in which millions of our fellow citizens who vehemently oppose EU membership, having finally had the opportunity to express themselves, might feel so utterly betrayed that they lose all faith in politics and democracy and turn instead to violence. Ulster suffered it for almost three decades and it required very few active terrorists to disrupt the lives of around one and a half million people. I seriously fear that if we do not honour the result of the referendum then organized violence will result. I believe that's Theresa May's perception of the situation, too.

jim jams

It's certainly my belief. The leave campaign has some very strong views and an overturn of the referendum decision will not be taken lightly in many areas.


..but were those views backed up by fact or based on thinly disguised propaganda. I think you will find it is the latter not the former.

Yes, there were annoying things about the EU, particularly the largess it proffered to its senior executives, but no one on the Leave side has given any evidence of why it would be better to be out. They keep talking about 'great opportunities' without actually naming any.

Take Andrea Leadsom's speech at the NFU conference yesterday. Full of bland statements about how great things will be but no detail. When asked about migrant labour, she had no answer just "we're working on it". When asked about the changes as to what defines a hedge, her answer completely contradicted her department's stated policy on farm payments being linked to environmental measures.

Today, we have the Norwegian Prime Minister echoing the words of our departing EU ambassador that the UK has little in the way of negotiating experience and that she fears "a very hard Brexit".

Strong views are not enough. Those views need to be backed up with solid plans and reference to fact. It is now a matter of weeks before article 50 is triggered and it appears that our government still has no plan, no solid base for a plan and no capacity or expertise to deliver a plan.

jim jams

And of course all the remain propaganda was perfectly true, too.


There was undoubtedly little planning before the referendum because the government fully expected to be able to manipulate the vote with its apocalyptic predictions and the intervention of the U.S President. Asking for "the plan" and "the details" now though are just the Remain camp's way of keeping up the pressure by trying to present the government's position as incompetent and untenable. That will change when article 5o is triggered. Of course there will be a detailed plan, but first it would have been necessary to weed out all of those civil servants whose hearts were not in doing their duty and put in their place those who would. A plan is no good if it is persistently sabotaged from within. Then, there are strategic considerations. Much to their chagrin, EU institutions have not completed building the empire they so desire and still currently rely on the support of the French, German and Italian Presidents, but in all three of those founder member nations, big political changes are in the wind this year. The EU says that single market access relies upon free movement and is non negotiable, but that position is almost certain to change along with the direction of priorities in those key nations - and it will only strengthen the government's hand. The Trump factor is another consideration. Putin wants the Baltic states. There's little doubt of that. It will be NATO and American military strength and technology that thwarts that ambition, not a fledgling and frankly, toothless EU army. However, some of our European allies have not met their obligations to NATO and Trump has questioned why America should be bothered if Germany is not. Here too, there will be changes and the UK will be in a strong position as part of the American, Canadian and UK axis. I think it might have been Churchill who said of his people "Still as saxon slow in starting - still as weirdly wont to win." I strongly suspect that whatever ills and torments Guy Verhofstadt might wish for perfidious Albion, he will be mightily disappointed and provided that Putin hasn't blown us all to kingdom come, the picture for the UK, ten years from now will be a lot rosier than might seem possible at present.


Jim Jams,

The remain campaign was a mess. If it hadn't have been such a mess, Leave wouldn't have stood a chance. They put Jack Straw's son in charge, a man with no experience of running a major political campaign. His experience was running an obscure political thinktank. He made a complete dogs dinner of the campaign and they gave him a CBE for it.

The big error they made was the made up loss of earnings statistic where they conflated GDP with household income. However, with the fall in the pound, that made up stat is at least half true!

I suspect that figure was cobbled together to try and combat some of the horrendous claims made by leave, particularly the £350 million for the NHS claim.

Another huge error made by Cameron was ending measures designed to help those areas with high levels of immigration. He did this in 2010. The was a special fund to improve infrastructure to cope with the increased population in these areas. If Cameron had kept that funding in place and had spent the six months building up to the referendum in assisting these areas, they may not have voted leave in the numbers they did.

Yes, remain made mistakes and didn't present their case strongly enough. They also failed to present a strong, simple argument and that is what lost them the referendum.


Jim Jams,

Also remember that the predictions of an economic downturn following the referendum were predicated on an immediate triggering of Article 50, which has not happened.


I suspect you are putting too much faith in the likes of Fox, Davis and Johnson.

According to Civil Service sources (leaks), Fox is in fantasy land, Boris isn't reading his brief and is making it up as he goes along and Davis is only happy if you tell him things he wants to hear.

It is increasingly evident that there is no plan, the cabinet are squabbling like rats in a sack and Hammond and May are rushing around trying to keep a lid on it.

There may soon be open civil war in the Tory party as there are at least three groupings all wanting different things from Brexit.


I like the "rats in a sack" analogy and I agree it's probably not very harmonious, but they aren't so daft as to stop and fall out in front of an open goal. Labour is in disarray and it's Leader in thrall to the hard left, the Lib Dems and Greens are impotent and the popularity of the SNP is declining north of the border where the Scottish Tory MP, Ruth Davidson is the rising star. UKIP is still on the scene and likely to steal a lot of votes from Labour, but the Coalition that would be required of the Opposition is simply mind boggling. The Tories have a free hand to figure out Brexit and although the parlous state of our political parties ought ordinarily to be quite alarming, at this particular moment in time I think it could be really helpful if the government can get on and do the job without too much interference. .


Pippa was not the biggest mistake for "Remain" the initial decision to major on the economy, evidence showed that only a small minority of leave voters were overly concerned with the economy but more interested in the sovereignty issue only remain were overly concerned about the economy and less interested in sovereignty. For me, that shows both camps were only talking to their own followers.


EU Realist,

As I stated, they over-egged the potential economic damage and made up a stat to try and convince people. Problem was that enquiring journalists and economic commentators could easily show that statistic was nonsense.

However, I think they only came up with that idea when they were spooked by Boris's battle bus.

At the launch of Remains campaign, they announced Sir Stuart Rose as the leader of Better Together. The first thing he said was that he was not a politician and he wouldn't be answering questions from the press. The press then pointed out he was supposedly leading a political campaign!

Cameron set out his intention to have a referendum first in the Conservatives 2010 manifesto. As he went into power as a coalition he held off because the Lib Dems blocked the referendum. I suspect Cameron was quite happy about this turn of events and he expected to be in another coalition after 2015. Problem was he got a majority and had to act on his manifesto pledge (which was really a measure for internal party discipline).

That aside, he had five years to get his plans ready and to develop a convincing Remain strategy. He clearly failed to do this and it is why he will go down as one of the worst Prime Ministers we have had in a very long time, probably since Campbell Bannerman's tenure in the 20's.

Our ed

Controlled by unelected foreigners?

Multi national meatball?

Perhaps best then we don't hark back to the good ol' days of colonisation et al. Whereby locals often had an opinion too - then it got pretty vocal as history dictated....

Big business etc, run countries not the suited and booted puppets (politicians) who do, in sadly majority of cases, quite frankly their bidding. Whilst feathering their own little nests. I guess a tiny bit of 'brainwashing' propaganda along the way helps their cause? As seen above....


What is best for the country is what should happen not relying on a vote that implied a future that cannot be delivered.

jim jams

No-one knows for sure what lies in the future, whether we stay or go, certainly not the remain campaigners .


Is this the narrow minded and obviously racist view that got us into this mess? Where does it stop, remove the Welsh from Oswestry, remove Lancastrians from Shropshire? Strangely enough I do not feel afraid if I hear Polish or French or German spoken when I am out and have always felt welcome when abroad whether in Europe, Africa or America. Admittedly I do feel embarrassed about being British when in Europe but there does not seem to be much I can do about that except explain the decision was only made by 37% of the electorate and as nothing has actually changed (apart from us being poorer) common sense may prevail yet.

As for people not being able to change their minds what is that all about?


Yawn. You forgot to suggest throwing all the moz's out aswell dear.

Every time I go abroad I have to apologize for socialist bigotry and Labour zealots, touring Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya in fact anywhere where there's been your lot.



Any excuse to air your diatribes against labour and all it stands for.Give it a rest as it's becoming boring



Dear Bless

If you do not know why we should support the EU with all its faults you should watch "After Hitler" on TV.

If you do then have no idea what is going on there is no hope for you.


You travel? I find that a little difficult to believe. Perhaps your choice of destination or company is questionable and it's those that provide the source of your embarrassment. Have you considered emigration yourself? You might feel much more comfortable away from the stupid and vexatious racists that blight your life here. Germany is an attractive, welcoming and staunchly supportive member of the EU. I would look into it if I were you.


I imagine his travel is limited to bars with a cross of St George hung outside, serving cheap lager and full English breakfasts. He probably shouts at foreigners in English, on the assumption that they'll understand him better if he does so.

In short, exactly the sort of Briton I often feel like apologising for when I'm abroad...


[others will use the courts, to seek to overturn the result of the referendum because you didn't like it,]

The decision with come down to those we elect, quite rightly.

If we had a referendum regarding bringing back hanging it would probably be a yes vote but that would not make it the right decision.


Oh! So democracy is based on your opinion of what is the right decision.

Cunning Linguist

I thought it was based on your opinion and anyone who disagreed should 'just shut up'.


Try not to misquote and create a lie it makes you look silly

Cunning Linguist

Punctiliousness is a particularly silly concept.


In 1975 a referendum was held as to whether Britain should remain in the EEC. Margaret Thatcher campaigned strongly for "in". She said "“Everyone should turn out in this referendum and vote yes, so that the question is over once and for all, we are really in Europe, and ready to go ahead". The people followed her guidance and voted yes. I believe this was the choice of the nation and should never be overturned.


You are arguing for people not being allowed to change their minds, but Thatcher changed hers when the EU changed in a way with which she disagreed, did she not?

So why do believe those who voted for the Common Market in 1975 should have the final say when the EU has changed into what it is today without asking the people.

James B

You can't have it all ways on Thatcher and the EU though.

When she was campaigning for the UK to join and then stay in the EC - wearing jumpers with flags of all the EC countries on the front while she did so - did she know what Edward Heath knew, that the EC would one day 'cover the whole field of endeavour'? If she did, she was being disingenuous with the public when claiming it was simply going to be good for trade.

If she didn't know, she was either uncurious or a little bit thick. After all, Tony Benn and a bunch of other leftie dinosaurs knew these things - knew that the implications would be loss of parliamentary sovereignty, and being run by unelected commissioners - and campaigned for 'out' on the basis of these issues (not by plastering imaginary sums of money on the sides of buses or posing before xenophobic posters, you'll note).

Move forward 11 more years - to 1986 - and you have Thatcher signing the Single European Act, the most integrationist piece of European legislation up to that point, without which Maastricht and what followed could never have happened. Modern-day right-wing Brexiters love Thatcher because she waved her handbag and shouted 'no, no, no' at a bunch of Frenchmen. They love the jingoistic symbolism, they don't examine the record.

The last two years of Thatcher's premiership, she'd simply lost her marbles. There's not a lot of point examining things she said and did during that period and attempting to extract real meaning from them.


But that is what I said James, Thatcher changed her mind when the EU changed in a way with which she disagreed

She was responding to a call by European Commission president Jacques Delors' for the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the European Community, the commission to be the executive and the Council of Ministers to be the senate. She said no to each of these proposals hence "no no no"

I do not deny there is always a dichotomy between our view of the EU and what it actually is.

That has been the problem throughout our membership and was evident during the recent referendum campaign where those want to remain based their arguments on the economy and membership of the single market rather than any advantages of actually being in the political union, or vision of the EU as our future nation-state or the advantages of adopting the Euro or a combined EU armed forces.

James B

She woke up to those things 20 years after Benn and co had been warning about them though. Either woke up to them or had been playing the public on a string all along.

That's my point. It was the Bennite left who were always the true antis, not latter-day flip-floppers like Thatcher.

You're the one who always says the founding vision of the (now) EU was to be a 'United States of Europe', and I've agreed with you in essence. But you can't then have it both ways and say it 'changed' in a way Thatcher didn't like. It didn't change, it continued its evolution into what it had always said it would become.

Thatcher was / should have been in a position to see that when she campaigned to join, campaigned to stay in and signed all the crucial legislation.


But James, you are not tolerant of the fact that the EU is still being created and is continually changing, or the British Political elites actually think they can direct the EU along the path they would prefer, thus nullifying the warnings of those who campaigned "leave" in 1975.

There is as I said dichotomy between our view of the EU and what it is, we continually think of it in terms of Foreign policy and trade when it is actually destined to become our country.

I leave open the question of whether our leaders woke up to the EU ideals or had been playing the public on a string all along. The only British PM who was at least honest was Blair and he described the situation as a choice between treason or being at odds with the EU.

James B

'...you are not tolerant of the fact that the EU is still being created and is continually changing...'

The only way to respond to this is to quote your own words back to you ; 'there is a destination'. I think you used the image of fast and slow trains going to the same place, and I can't do a lot better than that just now. But not only IS there a destination, there has been since 1948. As we have also agreed.


Agreed there is a destination but for some reason, the British leaders think then can change the destination.

We are looking at evidence of that misunderstanding now with at least three members of the cabinet believing they can force the EU to break its four basic principals for membership of the Single Market just for us.


It has taken over 40 years to force a referendum by threatening the vote of the main parties and clearly voters have changed their minds since 1975. Now an anti-democratic minority want to hold another referendum because they only want democracy when it suits them.

The anti-democratic brigade had every opportunity to make their case they had the government campaign for them using public money and all the power of government, not to mention the Labour party, the Lib Dems, the unions, most of the media, the EU, several foreign leaders, including the President of the USA and still they could not win the referendum, so now they want another chance. Anti democratic bad losers does not even begin to describe the perfidy of these people.

As usual with the EU when the people vote the wrong way we get to vote again until we vote the right way then we do not get to vote again.

Cunning Linguist

Presumably you'll accept the independence of the judiciary who, so far, have decided the final decision is with parliament.


If the referendum vote had gone the other way and the country had voted to remain would Nigel have said its a fair cop guv and disbanded UKIP? No, of course he wouldn't. He would have continued to campaign to leave the EU. That's why you have the right to try and get it overturned. whether or not it should be overturned is another matter of course. Perhaps a vote on the two options, stay in or accept the deal that the govt negotiate.

jim jams

But the government tried to negotiate a deal before the referendum and look what happened then. It's got to be one out all out, I would have thought a left wing thinker like yourself would understand that, brother.


Left wing? Me? You really have got the wrong end of the stick.


No Zorro we have already voted to leave so the "remain" camp do not get a second bite of the cherry and to ask the question again, although that is standard EU procedure.

We leave the EU if then those in favour of rejoining want to campaign for that and full membership of the Political union that is their right of course.

What the anti-democratic brigade do not want to face is "Remain" lost despite holding all of the advantages, despite the dire warnings from everyone of importance, every government department, every government-backed think tank, the Bank of England the Labour party the Lib Dems, most of the media etc.

Cunning Linguist

Yes, although Brextremists are trying to undermine parliament and the independence of judges & civil servants, remainers are the anti-democrats.


Parliament has already had its say and it voted to pass the question to the people also Parliament has already voted to give the power to obey EU treaties to the government and the Lisbon treaty says "A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention".

Obviously the legal moves are nothing more than an attempt to reject the referendum result.

Cunning Linguist

Unfortunately the High Court disagreed with you. Presumably the Supreme Court will overturn the previous judgement that the Act enabling the referendum was incorrectly worded to be legally binding. If, by some mischance, it doesn’t I presume you won’t be among those attempting to undermine the independence of the judiciary?


Bob Wydell has written many strange and illogical letter to the Star over the years, but I think this one takes the biscuit.

The 'leave' campaign narrowly won the vote - by less than 2%. Since then, it has become increasingly clear that the decision to leave - even before we have formally communicated our intention to leave - is damaging to our economy. We have an additional £59bn of debt (£250 million per week in extra interest alone), plus many tens of billions spent on measures such as quantitative easing - and that's just so far.

It's also now obvious that all of the 'leave' campaign was based upon lies - especially the grossly exaggerated claims about Turkish immigrants, and the ridiculous lie, which many UKIP people still seem to be spouting, that we send £350m per week to the EU, and will get this imaginary sum back to spend on the NHS.

Prices are set to go up this year, and with that, we may well see jobs lost - we'll have to see just how bad it gets, but there may well come a point where people stop their sheep-like following of tabloids, and realise that their protest vote has had exactly the opposite effect to what they wanted.

At that point, if they, or their elected representatives, decide that a change of mind will be best for the UK, then they have every right to change their mind. We can't have temporary democracy to suit the desires of the most extreme of Brexiteers, especially when they claimed to be so in favour of parliamentary sovereignty.

jim jams

Yawn, yawn, yawn. Why not go abroad for ten years, come back and all will be rosy....no-one will miss you and your ilk.

jim jams

As you can see, it's all downhill because of Brexit...or NOT!





I don't think you can rely on the Shropshire Star for a balanced view of Brexit. Perhaps you should broaden your reading matter.


And in that reply, ladies and gentlemen we see a prime example of what many a 'kipper really thinks of democracy, despite their faked enthusiasm for it when it suits them...


PJS. You bring out the worst in me. You come across as such a pompous, angry, know-it -all, that I itch just to wind you up! But it's too easy. When I can read your ill tempered diatribes and smile, then I'm reminded of that line from Max Ehrmann's famous work "Desiderata" - "listen to others, even to the dull and ignorant, they too, have their story..."

Tony in BC

On the contrary Watchdog even though I disagree with PJS on many subjects he does offer some balance to these forums. His views are well-written and he presents some facts - if they are indeed incorrect then counter these claims in a gracious manner. Unfortunately many who disagree do not offer adequate or well researched responses and resort to ad-hominem attacks - which do nothing to promote reasoned debate.

Back to Bob Wydell's letter: He claims that the EU is responsible for the mult-national meatball where nobody feels safe. I'm a tad older than Wydell and I can assure you that Great Britain was a mult-national island long before Britain entered the EU. And methinks life in little old Shropshire is a lot safer than most place on this planet - especially compared to this side of the pond!


Tony PJS does not offer facts he manufacturers them and then ignores challenges but continues to repeat his so-called facts in spite of being corrected.

Take for instance his £59bn of debt, that is an estimated figure for the next 5 years, it might be the case it might not, a lot will depend on how the government conducts leaving the EU. The Office for Budget Responsibility who made the claim say there is only a 50 % chance of it being right!

PJS removes the context and presents this as not only a certainty but something that has already happened and then claims it is a fact.

The only fact is the Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated this to be the cost over the next 5 years and they have admitted there is only a 50% change that they are right. Another fact is the (OBR) has got their predictions wrong several times in the past few years.

So next time you see PJS make his £59bn debt claim you will be able to correct him.

jim jams

Too right, unfortunately, Tony, there are far too many like PJS, who will not work with the country to make it a better place. Now Brexit is happening we all need to work together to make the best of it but the likes of PJS and many civil servants are still working against the will of the people. These people need outing, they are nothing better than sabotuers and in the war would have been lined up and shot.

You have run businesses, you say, so how would you like it if your business was starting up and a fraction of your workforce were making things difficult to succeed by making false claims about your company and trying to undermine everything that you as the boss were doing to try and make the company succeed...that's what PJS and his ilk are up to.

James B

Just a thought, but could we possibly stop with the shooting and death references? The referendum campaign and its aftermath have seen enough violence, real and threatened, as it is. There was the murder of Jo Cox by a right-wing terrorist - yes, she was killed because of what she believed in - Polish children were intimidated in school playgrounds after the vote, and Gina Miller has received rape and death threats after challenging the government, and winning, in court. Exercising a legal right, in other words.

There are more examples, but those will do, for now. The right-wing press is urging all this on, with its headlines like 'Enemies of the People', 'Silence the Remainers' and the rest.

I've never seen winners with such anger and violence inside them, frankly. But it really is time it stopped.

jim jams

Sorry dear but if you can't take references and comparisons of sabotage to the war, then maybe you should refrain from comments pages

James B

Class, Jim-Jams, you either have it or you don't. And you most certainly don't.

jim jams

Ah insults now that goes well with the inability to face up to the modern world , that unfortunately is full of violence but no doubt you would prefer to bury your head in the sand and pretend that the violence we are seeing in europe now isn't really happening and has nothing to do with islamic fanatic immigrants....of course not.

jim jams

James, one thing the whole Brexit episode has taught me, is that there are a large part of the country who seem to live in a la la world, where everything is perfect and nothing needs to change and your denial of the reality of violence is just one more typical example of where the remain side are out of touch with reality.

You may think that you are in a class of your own and indeed it seems you are but that class seems to be the dunces class when it comes to reality and sorting out our problems.

The reason so many people voted for Brexit, was the fact that uncontrolled immigration is not only unsustainable for the country but is also leading to a danger for the country's security, as parts of Europe ar now finding out.


Well put PJS.


Shropshire Star get it wrong again. That post was in reply to PJS's erudite and balanced comment earlier.

The rumpus it has invoked is interesting/depressing to say the least.

My recently deceased father at 94 was flabbergasted at the EU vote. As a war veteran and strangely labour man turned Tory he was incredulous that we have turned back decades of valuable co-operation with our European partners and all the lessons his and his father's generation learned fighting two world wars.

jim jams

Perhaps you should hit the reply button and then you comment would follow on to the comment that you want to reply to...it isn't hard , really, Terry.


I did, which is pretty obvious from my comment to anyone with half a brain.

Your sarcasm says it all, you haven't got much of any value to say jim jams.

jim jams

You are still not doing it correctly , Terry otherwise your reply would follow on from mine...easy really.


As an Old Salopian, who moved to Switzerland and France to work on a British government supported research project, the disastrous Brexit decision depressed me greatly. What dismayed me most was the narrowness of that debate which concentrated on immigration and understandably, the economy. Few of the electorate seemed to realise that there were other parameters to consider, namely, the vast range of inter-European scientific research projects, change of university exchange programmes (Erasmus), exchange of security and anti-criminal information. Then there is the need to buttress NATO, not a European army, with a solid European community support.

Wild statements, were published particularly in papers such as the Express, Mail and Sun about "Brussels undermining British laws and rulings". Yet when I have requested Brexiterrs to name an "evil* law emanating from Brussels, they were unable to name any. Did it not occur to many Brexiteers that many of these laws covered technical norms to create fair competition rules, hygiene standards (clean beaches etc), cheaper telephone and air fares?

Unlike many east Europeans in the UK, I have suffered no attacks from my continental neighbours, only the question as to: "why are you British leaving our European community?"

Since the Brexit vote, the debate has widened and people are more knowledgeable about the issues at stake. They are entitled to know the outcome of the forthcoming negotiations in two or more years to come. If those conclusions offer a greatly different outlook than that we anticipated at the time of voting last June, then there is an argument to suggest that a second referendum is required.

jim jams

If that is the case it should be after negotiations have completed and 5 years down the line once the dust has settled and we can judge if we are better off or worse off...it's all speculation at the mo...just like the campaigns before the vote.


warrillowcerjul, the basic problem is the EU has always been sold to us as a trading club even the arguments you are making are based on that assumption, the EU is not a trading club it a nation state being built.

The people of the UK do not and has never have shared the EU ideals of a European community that is obvious by the many opt outs we have and those that are to come, the EU armed forces, for instance, we do not want to be part of that.

You are also ignoring the fact that your arguments were well rehearsed during the referendum debate and we voted to leave the EU despite your arguments, you are therefore attempting to use the same arguments for a second referendum when they failed to convince the first time.

Tony in BC

I was recently in Zurich and found the attitudes re. Brexit, were about 50/50 - of course the Swiss already contribute financially towards the EU's coffers in order to do trade - and they have over double the percentage of foreign nationals living in the country compared to Britain or Germany.

thomas the tank

I see the fantasy film La La Land is a close runner for the oscars with the new Ken Loach film.

Judging by past performances, it is believed that 48% will vote for La La Land whilst 52% will vote for I Daniel Blake as as they can relate to the harsh realities of Northern Britain.

Cunning Linguist

What a pity there wasn't a remake of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, you'd have been so represented.


Eurealist, I certainly do not support the nation that the E.U. is a nation state being built. It may have been an ideal shared by certain European leaders, but I believe that dream is now dying within Europe itself. However, whether you like it or not, NATO is a basically a European defence entity that has to have European community backing if it is to remain an effective and dynamic force. I agree, that the so-called "European army" concept is a non-starter as far as we and other European states are concerned, particularly as NATO is already underfunded. The creation of a "European army" would entail more administration and military spending.

One of the many undesirable consequences of Brexit is that it increases the risk of breakng up the United Kingdom. This will serve in turn to undermine NATO. Can we imagine a separate Scottish army, navy and airforce?

British scientific institutions and universities have always thought in terms of working within a European community with identical groups. A visit to CERN in Geneva and other European technical collaborations would demonstrate to you how successful is this cooperation. But of course scientists are part of the elite and so divorced from the current populist and insular movements in Britain that we should ignore them.

Cunning Linguist

Unfortunately Brextremists don't care, their only driving force is out of the EU regardless of the consequences. Prepare to rebuild the Empire - oh wait a minute, apparently there's no money to re-equip the Navy.

Try our beta site!

We’re getting ready to launch our brand new website for shropshirestar.com and we’d like to give you a sneak preview.

We’re still applying the finishing touches, so please bear with us if something’s not quite right.

We'd love to hear your thoughts, good or bad, via the simple feedback button that you'll see to the right side of every page.

Try the beta