YP Letters: Views are yet more flawed logic from anti-Brexit brigade

The views of remainers A Davies and John Turley (Letters, July 29) are just a re-hash of oft repeated but greatly flawed logic by the anti-Brexit brigade.

Mr Davies states incorrectly that the majority voting for leaving was smaller than that voting to join in 1975.

There has never been a vote to join. Edward Heath would not allow a referendum because he would have lost hands down, with about 70 per cent of both the public and the commons then being against joining. The 1975 vote was a vote to remain in the Common Market which we joined in 1973, and was the result of a very lopsided campaign loaded in favour of the Common Market by the then Labour government. Also, a vote by 17.42 million people must be far more democratic than one by only 650 people, most with self interest at heart and not the country’s.

Like all the remainers he mentions the percentages and like all remainers claims the ones who did not vote, would have voted remain, this is totally illogical, the remainers must not only accept the referendum result they must also accept that those who did not vote, did not care one way or the other, so are basically irrelevant.

Mr Turley also uses the same old lame reasons for the vote to leave none of any value, the leave voters voted to take back control of our country by our Parliament, there were no false promises on NHS spending or anything else as he wrongly asserts.

He also claims those who did not vote would have voted to remain, and claims that this is what opinion polls say, but all the polls before the referendum predicted a remain victory. A lot of polls have predicted the same sort of result as the proper referendum, and a lot of people who have now seen project fear for the empty lies that it was may vote to leave instead of remain.

From: P Blackshaw, Cleckheaton

Who, in their right mind, would continue to pay a membership fee to a club that had not produced audited accounts for at least the last five years, and what club could rightfully expect any member to do so, especially one who has resigned? Yet here we have a union which is demanding that a member, who has chosen to leave, pays an extortionate leaving fee without the member having any idea as to where that, or any other money already paid, has gone to.

It must surely, therefore, be incumbent upon the EU to produce audited accounts and then invite the UK to discuss what, if any, money is due.