Here’s another fine mess you’ve gotten me into,

Poor Oliver Hardy was curiously loyal to Stan Laurel given the chaos of their on-screen lives which Olly blamed entirely on Stan.

So you might add the same epithet to UK politics. As much as I dislike being ‘wise after the event’ I will indulge in this somewhat, because I said it before the event.

Firstly, you don’t agree to something before you know what it is you are agreeing to. There is an Aesop Fable about this human weakness where a pig is purchased whilst it is still hidden in a bag.

Any vote on whether to stay in or leave the European Union should have included the previously negotiated terms of such a deal. It’s like putting a label on the box.

Because this did not take place, the two sides were able to invent what would and what would not happen after Brexit. So whatever result the general populace wanted, such as uncontrolled immigration, could be promised to be solved by Brexit. The Home Office have had eight years to control immigration and only now are proposing a strategy to control it. And the fact all along, was that four out of five immigrants to the UK are not from the European Union.

Thirdly, there was the problem of the Northern Ireland border with Eire. The older politicians in the house of Commons will have lived through the so called ‘troubles’. They might have warned the younger inexperienced politicians that any attempt to replace border controls would be social and political suicide for Northern Ireland. Because of this alone, the referendum should have never been promised, until a solution to Ireland was obvious. This would have included the option of uniting Ireland. This is not an impossible outcome in the future now that the south is becoming more liberal and the majority in the north want to remain in Europe.

So what happened? How did politicians ignore the false promises, agree to something without knowing what was being proposed and before solving the Irish land border’s vulnerability?

Could it have been that the conservative party had a problem within itself that it needed to confront or face losing power? It has been the case for decades that European sceptics within the party were at odds constantly with those who believed the UK is more prosperous within Europe?

Is this in-fighting really the tail that was wagging the dog?

You would like to think that politicians act in the interest of the Nation first and their own party’s second. That is what they tell us but it is conceivable that this has not been so. Brexit was called by Cameron to force a direction, one way or the other. Confirmation of this is that the rules of the referendum permitted an infinitely narrow margin in the result. The rules did not require a sixty percent or two thirds majority, as they could have done.

Someone decided that the voting should be; whoever gets over fifty percent wins. That decision anticipated that there was no consensus within the party and to force change, a majority of one vote over millions, would be deemed representative of the people and logically no one could disagree.

In my view British politics has been brought to an all time low by the current set of politicians on both sides of the house. The only MP I have heard talk sense is Caroline Lucas – the Green Party MP. ‘Good on yer, Caroline’. Don’t forget that the voice of one person can decide the future of a nation, at least in the current nonsensical version of so called democracy.

Whoever can point out the elephant in the room and stop the nation accepting a ‘no deal’ will be a hero.