In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Given the concept of 'Brexit' was never properly explained (and still
isn't clear); the campaigning was at best tainted, at worst illegal; and
the quality of information and debate was poor. On both sides.

It was perfectly clear to me, and it was carefully pointed out by a
number of politicians: we would leave the EU, the CU, the SM, and the
jurisdiction of the ECJ. Article 50 makes it quite clear: two years
after declaring the intention to leave under Article 50 (that is by a
member state exercising its treaty rights), "the Treaties shall cease
to apply to the Member State".

Anything else I gotta know?

If the referendum had made it clear that leaving the EU would end up with
no new trade deal between us at all, why did so many tell us the EU would
roll over and give us a decent new deal after we'd left?

--
*The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.