It was an example, not a one or the other argument, sorry you misinterpreted it, and I can only put that down to how I presented it. My bad, sorry. As for MP'

It was an example, not a one or the other argument, sorry you misinterpreted it, and I can only put that down to how I presented it. My bad, sorry. As for MP's being neutral, well, it's not impossible, and would be refreshing and well needed change. Otherwise we will just repeat the same old mess with no central point of facts and impartiality to look at for contrast. Making the whole vote a futile mess that will only end up with the same divide, whatever the outcome. If only the EU stepped back and said we are looking at reforming certain area's, offering up something new to vote upon, at least that would appease the sense of democracy. Otherwise it would be seen as some as another case of the EU not liking the result and being told to vote again. Which is how they will see it, more so as that is what they feared publicly before the referendum and got shot down by the other side for lies. So to say it is complicated is an understatement. But some grounding is needed and the MP's being neutral and not taking sides, same with parties. Would only help. But then, much in politics that is flawed and in need of reform. Yet we can't even agree upon a digital voting system, let alone the ability to use more than a single character. Imagine if Twitter had a limit of one character and you could only post once every 5 years. Think of the level of debate and productivity that would be achieved with such limitations and that is what politics is too the people and we call that democracy.