What Nigel sez is actually true, though, Dave. Both sides lied in their teeth and made unjustifiable predictions for post-brexit or post-referendum. So here's the summary:

We were subjected to a campaign in which both sides lied to us.

By the end of the campaign, very little by way of the TRUE brexit pro and cons had been elucidated.

38% of the electorate voted leave, a narrow majority of those who voted.

The leave side have justified this shenanigans by telling us things like "the nation has decided," "the people have spoken," "it was the greatest exercise in democracy the country has ever undertaken," etc.

So, Nigel, as you agree that both sides ran a dishonest campaign, and I won't disagree with that, do you also agree that the referendum was far from being a valid exercise in democracy, that it is not valid to claim that "the people have spoken" and that the outcome should in no way mean that the thing is now a justified fait accomplis? Can you also justify the fact that it wasn't the people, it wasn't parliament, it wasn't even the cabinet, but that it was a wallowing, indecisive prime minister and a now-discredited personal adviser who, alone, decided that the referendum result gave them a mandate to declare that it meant leaving the customs union and single market? Don't remember seeing that on my ballot paper. It may have been said during the campaign, but haven't we just agreed that we couldn't trust anything said during the campaign by either side?