Report comment

The whole debate about Brexit isn't really a debate, but the shouting of polarised opinions, one consequence of which is that those who are more upset about being shouted at will more likely keep quiet. This appears to be what Tombs alludes to - in academia, he suggests, most opinion is anti-Brexit; ergo, those in favour will have to put up with more shouting.

I agree with Tom Appleby that "it's not really for lawyers to be for or against Brexit per se." However, it seems to me likely that Brexit will create much more legal work (because of new laws and arrangements) and rationally therefore one might expect lawyers to be more in favour.

I voted 'remain', not because of any strong belief, but because of the law of unintended consequences. Despite - or because of - the inept campaigns on both sides of the debate/shouting match, it was evident that no-one had sat down calmly to work out what was involved. When May became PM, I was at first reassured by her gnomic utterances on the subject, as surely masking a great deal of focussed effort on what needed to be done. Strangely, it became apparent that very little had been done in preparation before the Article 50 notice was served - and hardly great leaps in the months following either. For this lamentable lapse in governmental responsibility the present government richly deserves to be excoriated. (The Tories' internal disputes over Brexit are not an excuse, but a condemnation.)

If only Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition had a clue what needs to be done ... but its intellectual position is so convoluted and muddled it is hard to imagine anything but chaos were the Opposition in government.

These are certainly interesting times, but I do wish the volume could be turned down a bit.