Is anyone saying that BOTH sides do not have to get rid of their weaknesses Or at least try. What is sinister about that?

It sounds like you're saying everyone should believe the same thing. While, in an ideal world, it would be nice, freedom of thought comes in and people can believe whatever they like. You can, of course, point out where their beliefs contradict evidence, but... well, the road to Ne'tu is paved with good intentions

I found it very strange that a lot of the Leave campaign’s big and bold claims — so many extra millions for the NHS — were allowed to stand unchallenged, while now it looks like it will be a huge downer for the UK economy.

Needs saying !

Your post does not address "Maslow's hierarchy of needs" relative to the importance people should pay to the economy...you must be one of the fortunates that have a job/money.

@irascible He and his like are benefitting financially from the uncertainty brought on by this fiasco. It is estimated that up to a £trillion has been move from the UK to Europe recently. Rees Mogg manages a fund based in Dublin and has by some estimates benefitted personally to the tune of £7 million.

It woukd be dangerous to do so. A second, upper, chamber is an essential check against the power of the lower chamber. However, ALL members should be elected, not appointed merely by being awarded a title. That leads to patronage. Perhaps criteria, such as a minimum IQ level of 110, could be required. That should keep the Abbots of this world out and justify the name "Lords".

@Petter The Brexit problems are not with the Lords, it is with the commons. In theory and elected 2nd chamber seems a good idea but in practice it has the same party politics that we see in the US senate. The Lords consist of only 26 voting hereditary piers (chosen by their number) bishops, a few from the arts, civil service but the most vocal are the retired politicians. It seems a waste of good talent not to use their experience as a balance.
As for the bishops, I can see why on this site it may seem an intrusion of church into state. Yet they have been the most vocal against govt cuts affecting the poor.
There is also the UK rules regarding govt ministers. You must be a member of parliament to be a minster and being made a lord immediately gives that right. A case in point was our version of Trump. ie "Apprentice" guy, Allan Sugar. He was drafted into the labour cabinet as an industry minister.

@273kelvin I agree with a lot of that, but I was replying to the comment saying we should abolish the house of Lords.

The Brexit problems are not with the Lords, it is with the commons. In theory and elected 2nd chamber seems a good idea but in practice it has the same party politics that we see in the US senate. The Lords consist of only 26 voting hereditary piers (chosen by their number) bishops, a few from the arts, civil service but the most vocal are the retired politicians. It seems a waste of good talent not to use their experience as a balance.
As for the bishops, I can see why on this site it may seem an intrusion of church into state. Yet they have been the most vocal against govt cuts affecting the poor.
There is also the UK rules regarding govt ministers. You must be a member of parliament to be a minster and being made a lord immediately gives that right. A case in point was our version of Trump. ie "Apprentice" guy, Allan Sugar. He was drafted into the labour cabinet as an industry minister.

@Petter Sorry it was meant for both of you

@273kelvin I do feel the house of lords should not be subject to party politics and patronage and shoild require members to be capable. Hence, my idea of an IQ test requirement, repeated every few years! Other qualifications should also be required.

@Petter Not required as life piers tend to been outstanding in their field and the voting hereditary piers are chosen for their ability.

@Petter Sorry Petter I wasn't clear. What I really meant was abolish unelected members of government. Here in Australia our system is pretty much the same as yours with an Upper and Lower house but of course all are elected by the people. While I am pro republican, if it meant adopting the American system of gov't I'd rather stick with the commonwealth.

@Petter, @273kelvin I believe there is great merit in having representatives who are expert in diverse fields but I don't hold with people born into ruling classes. It's archaic and undemocratic.

@MsDemeanour Except, of course, me and my family. We are inherently above the masses, who turn to us tor guidance. ????

@Petter Of course Lord Petter (tugging my forelock.......or do only men do that?) lol

@MsDemeanour In the case of Ladies, we Lords tug their forelocks for them, and encourage them to tug other fore thingies.

Not many can see the path and I do NOT know when we will reach that destination. However unless we clear the weeds from that path it will never be a possibility. Just use our Agnostic advantages.