You're right - this pathetic whining, particularly prevalent among left-wing people it seems, that they have been "disenfranchised" if they lose a democratic vote is not important. It's laughable.

"...around 16.8 million or more people will be wondering why they have been disenfranchised."

To be disenfranchised is to be denied the right to vote. In what way have those who voted Remain, who (and here's a clue) had a chance to vote not just at the Referendum, but in the 2017 and 2019 general elections, and the 2019 Euro elections, been deprived of their right to vote?

On the morning of the results, I half-expected Cameron to say words to the effect of "the margin of victory for Leave is clear, but small, and Scotland and Northern Ireland (and Gibraltar) clearly voted to remain; and on that basis Parliament must now decide how to proceed." He had a glimmer of an escape route. But he'd already said that "we will implement what you decide" stuff so he didn't really have a choice.

I meant "you" in the collective sense, but if you feel I've insulted you then that was not my intention and I apologise.

I still think you're being too harsh on people you no doubt regard as your political enemies, although I've just leafed through the relevant chapter in Cameron's autobiography and it's clear he was more active than I had remembered. There were plenty of other famous faces who campaigned prominently for Remain. I attended a public debate in London where Nick Clegg was booed the minute he stood up, in a way that the other Remainers were not, and I suspect there were many people who simply voted against particular politicians they disliked (in the way that someone I know who is a natural Leaver at the time said she could never vote for anything that Farage supported). At the same debate Chuka and Liz Kendall ran through the benefits of being in the EU (and I doubt you'll find many Leavers who don't see some benefits in being in the EU), but the response from Farage and Hannan was "sure, but the price is too high". That's ultimately what many people such as myself concluded.

I don't doubt your own efforts in support of your cause, but I think there were plenty of people, from all political sides, who were prominent in the Remain campaign and consequently should share some blame.

I don't know why Cameron's being blamed for the rubbish Remain campaign. Labour, the LibDems and the Welsh and Scottish nationalists all campaigned heavily to remain as party policy, the official Remain campaign was run by Will Straw and the Tory front man was Osborne. I don't recall Cameron doing that much, save for a few TV appearances and doing his best to try to explain why his "renegotiation" wasn't a slap in the face, and presumably sanctioning that nationwide mailshot in which the government promised to implement the result.

If Remainers are unhappy about the campaign, and indeed the result, then tough - maybe you all should have tried to inject more passion into your position or spoken to a few people outside of your particular bubbles to understand what they were thinking and what was likely to affect their vote. My sense at the time was that you all thought it would be a Remain walkover and largely acted accordingly. All the vigour in the campaign was on the Leave side.

Your accusations work both ways, of course. I recall a colleague from Singapore asking me if I was aware how the Remainer Parliament's repeated attempts to derail the Referendum result looked to those countries which had always admired the British parliamentary system. "If Britain can't respect the result of a referendum, then who can?" were his exact words. Remainers certainly did their bit to contribute to the "laughing stock" image your refer to.

Here's what David Collins, Professor of International Economic Law at City, University of London has just written on the Politeia.co.uk website:

"The Internal Market Bill need not breach international law. Instead, it sets out how the UK intends to operate in the event that it seeks to denounce last year’s Withdrawal Agreement that confirmed the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. Treaty denunciation is not illegal, provided that it is done so with lawful justification. Article 60 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties allows for the termination of a treaty upon a ‘material breach’ by one of the parties.

Article 184 of the Withdrawal Agreement required that the EU negotiate a satisfactory future relationship that respects UK sovereignty using good faith and best endeavours, to be encapsulated in a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (FTA). There is a strong argument to be made that the EU has failed to discharge this duty, committing a material breach of the Agreement." [He then lists several examples of EU behaviour to support that "strong argument", concluding that the EU is indulging in "overreaching interpretations" of the Withdrawal Agreement.]

"As a preparation for a no-deal scenario, the new Bill merely sets out that the UK sees it differently. This is a matter of interpretation – it is not a breach of international law, at least not until a competent international court rules it as such pursuant to the agreement’s narrow dispute settlement provisions."

How many identities is this for you now - 4 or 5? 6 even?

The FT? That well know objective observer of Brexit? Whose former editor was literally rewarded for his services to the EU? That FT?

Come on, OneTiT, you can do better than that.

And how many more billions will the UK have to pay for another year? "Make them pay as much as possible for as long as possible" was the instruction (always admitted, never denied) by the EU member states to Barnier.

We've paid enough; we've waited enough; and to follow your own invective: **** the EU.