Report comment

I am glad Mr Maloney does not seek to point the finger at me particularly, as I certainly do not take the outcome of the referendum with anything other than the utmost seriousness. I yearn to be shown the evidence and arguments that will convince me that, as a nation that is about to exit the EU, the UK has a clear direction of travel ahead of it that will lead to a place where we can live in peace with our European neighbours and with a social and economic framework that is at least no worse that we have enjoyed whilst in the EU. Sadly, I have been provided with little or no such evidence/argument, whether during or since the referendum campaign. And the disparaging and unreasoned remarks made here about Mr Soames and Belgium as a country only add fuel to the sense I have that those steering us down the Brexit road have no real idea of where we are going, which route to take to get there or what we will find at the end of the journey.

As to Mr Maloney's other comments, of course I have heard of NATO, and I do not deny the importance of its role in maintaining peace in Europe as a whole over the years since WW2, principally in relation to the external threat posed by the Soviet Union until its collapse. However, it is a military alliance that in many ways has run in parallel with and drawn strength from the political and economic alliance that started in and developed from the Treaty of Rome. It is this parallel development that, it seems to me, has been the foundation of the peace that has existed between the nations that have thrown their lot in with what is now the EU.

And, as regards Russia, Mr Maloney is right that I do not include it in the same category of European country as, the liberal democracies that now comprise the EU. Part of Russia may be in Europe in the geographical sense, but in its vast spread it is primarily an Asian country whose history has little to do with Europe, except as a source of perceived, and at times, actual threat. "Prisoners of Geography" by Tim Marshall shows why this is. And it is the looming presence of Russia to the east of the EU that gives me most concern when it comes to the potential break up of the EU, with the prospect of its members pursuing their own separate economic interests and political agendas in rivalry to each other. Russia has shown itself adept at playing the long game and exploiting political weakness and disharmony outside its borders. The break up of the EU could only serve its interests, as what would be the prospects then of holding NATO together, especially with a President Trump in the White House?

So, whilst I do not hanker to quash the referendum vote as such, I do ask those supporting the Brexit project to provide the evidence and argument to show that (a) their chosen course will produce an outcome that will ultimately be to the UK's benefit at least on balance, and (b) that they acknowledge the risks that exist and have plans in place to deal with them. Put simply, any business planning for change will conduct a SWOT analysis before proceeding and shape their plans accordingly, but I have seen nothing from our leaders that gives me any confidence that they have any idea what they are doing here. "We have our plans, but cannot tell you them for fear of undermining our negotiating position" is all we hear officially. And this information vacuum is filled with rumour and speculation, with those seeking to plan for the changes in their own businesses and lives left in the dark as to how best to respond. Can this really the right way for things to be working out?