As some of the MSM repeated the untruths first seen on Facebook and Twitter, as well as constructing a few of their own, it's certain that some did, although clearly not all. This isn't any of us "dumbing down" at all. This is all of us being subjected to concerted sophisticated attacks. Murdoch, Harmsworth and the Barclay brothers all use their papers to promote their own world views so their contribution to the way the public form opinions cannot be ignored.

The balance has swung a long way though. It isn't though just one side of the argument which has been targeted. One of the aims has been to create divisions, so playing on both sides has been done, with great success. However, as another aim was to break up the EU, supporting leave was given more prominence.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

That's the way it's being sold as apparently 95% of the text remains unchanged. However, the change to the way regulatory alignment is to be handled seems to have massive implications to me which demand very careful scrutiny before it is signed off as afterwards will be too late. The revised way of handling NI not so. They change the way the issue is to be handled there but not the fact that it will be handled.

What that does though, as any kind of Brexit does so far as I can determine, is to hasten the day when the UK falls apart. I heard some "loyalist" politicians this week saying that a united Ireland within the EU might actually be a good thing. The DUP appear to be becoming increasingly isolated. With Scotland now looking to me like a lost cause, if we Brexit, how will England and Wales fare alone. Indeed, how long will it be England AND Wales? If I am right then we will have left one Union and broken up another by this. I wonder if that is actually what those who voted to leave really wanted.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I don’t think the opening up of Eastern Europe and immigration into the U.K. in 2004 and the Lisbon treaty has a lot to do with bananas, tampons or even fish, unless you’re in the industry.

EU is great for some, but not all. After we’ve left and a lot of the fake hysteria has died down it’ll become noticeable we’re still in Europe but not in hock to an EU Parliament.

COYP

Just say you want to remain rather than wriggle number 8,754. Why didn’t you go into politics? You wouldn’t have needed any training or guidance. You could’ve faced Paxman, Marr and the QT audience and been the party whip and party leader’s no 1 favourite in 2 days. Straight into cabinet or shadow cabinet to decide what’s best for us.

COYP

Well done, at least that raised a smile. I have sometimes thought I missed my vocation and would have done OK as a barrister but as I came from a council house background and left school at 16 such things were never on my horizon.

I certainly would prefer to remain, but as that's not the choice being faced by Parliament it's not worth discussing it. The question is now whether Parliament ought to accept this deal, or reject it. If remaining ever became a viable option again and I could influence it, then I would probably try to support it. Right now our Parliament, having triggered Article 50, are trying to find a deal they can live with, or whether they can risk an extension refusal.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

As we’re still refinancing debt from WW1 we’ve been in hock to the USA for a long time.