Brexit was engineered and was never about a popular revulsion of the European project. Most people on either side of the decision knew very little about the European Union.

Ironically the UK was hardly in the EU - except to the extent it could mould and influence it and gain benefits from it. Surrounded by a massive natural moat and having stayed out of the Euro currency system and the Schengen arrangements for the free movement of people the UK was uniquely separate, independent and priviliged within the EU.

For ordinary people it was hard to see why they would vote to leave the Board of Directors of Manchester City to become an owner player-manager of a Sunday league team. The bombardment by the news media with visions of a horde flooding across the European space solely intent on crossing the English Channel stopped the day after the vote took place which showed both how orchestrated the exit was and how little the group behind it all thought of the mentality of most people. Vote to leave and the invasion disappears overnight.

Clearly it was not the business class that wanted this and people in general were enjoying a time of unprecedented certainty and growth with cheap goods in plentiful supply and no wild economic fluctuations had taken place in recent years. Ironically the banking crisis of 2009 was primarily created by the US banking system. Even the crisis of 2009 had not given rise to massive inflation. The demand for leaving the EU was being driven from a higher level than the British business elite or the parliamentary system.

Key reasons why an English Ruling Class would want to leave the EU

The realisation that the City of London as a priviliged entity, economically and politically and symbolically a state within a state was unlikely to survive. The realisation that accelerating climate change would effect the mainland of Europe first and the UK would be bound to supply support and shelter to millions and to share in the losses. The desire to return to a bygone age of social privilege for those with wealth and deference from the lower orders.

The people who own this island care little about the economic ebb and flow - they own a kingdom. They will not starve, they have footholds and resources in many countries, the forces of violence in the form of an army and a legal system are pledged to serve and protect them.

It interested me that even a stamp collectors club would need more than a simple majority to make a fundamental change to its operations. But unlike a stamp club the UK has no constitution. It baffles me how a simple majority from a mass of people that knows little of politics or economics or history can be given such a silly yet significant vote to participate in. If you vote between two choices there has to be some sort of equivalence in the choices and no other way of resolving the perceived difficulty forcing the choice. The only equivalence in the EU vote was linguistic, ‘stay’ or ‘leave’. But: Staying meant decades of social, political, administrative, economic, integration with relatively predictable and manageable expectations and support into the future; leaving meant a plunge into the unknown without plan or direction. Voting leave or stay is a bit like choosing between a cup of tea and lime green curtains.

If a decision like this has to be made then do it on a three-quarters majority. There is a sort of logic here - if the choice hangs so finely in the balance between a status quo and a radical change then you need to show that the right decision is so clear and compelling that a sizeable chunk of the oppostion to change has been persuaded.

Now if the simple majority vote had been on a feasibility study over a decade with plans put in place for a departure should it be deemed necessary, it might have made some sense with a 75% vote for change.