Calmer reasoning behind Brexit

It would have been better, and perhaps more persuasive, if Dr Frank had avoided deploying such intemperate and abusive language to support his case for defending the European Union. 
It is true that those campaigning last year for the UK to leave the EU made some questionable claims, but Dr Frank chooses to overlook the equally questionable claims made by those wishing to remain in the EU. 
This blinkered outlook reminds me of similar “tit for tat” claims here in Thailand in recent years, with one side of the political divide accusing the other of bolstering crowds at demonstrations by bussing in folks from the provinces, and paying them for their trouble. In truth, both sides did it! Another similarity with the political conflict here has been the repeated, and unjustified, accusations by disgruntled “Remainers” that those who voted to leave the EU were too stupid and uneducated to know what they were voting for.
I don’t think anyone is ignorant of the historical background to the formation of what has evolved into the present-day EU. But the British people voted by a small but clear majority to leave, for a whole variety of reasons. I speculate a major factor was the desire to reclaim those areas of national sovereignty that had been gradually ceded to the EU over the years, without the specific approval of the people. The 2106 referendum rectified that democratic deficit. 
The decision by the British people to exit the EU should be respected, in accordance with the spirit of democracy. What happens to the EU after Britain leaves is up to the remaining member-states to decide, hopefully in an equally democratic manner.
Finally, I would like to point out to Dr Frank that the primary role in defending Europe from external threats has been the responsibility of the Nato military alliance, which predates the EU by many years.
Robin Grant