The referendum campaign was flawed in any number of ways but this trial in which our EU membership stood accused was plagued by possibly the biggest sin you can commit in court: Perjury.

The Defence argued that the EU was not perfect but that it was young and needed time to develop the great potential that exists in it. They attempted to point out all the things the EU does for its members. They explained that the EU was a hard-working, if somewhat unorthodox friend with great ideals and intentions.

The prosecution faced with these facts and arguments decided to drop the truth along with their principles: they doctored the EU’s tax returns, their “witnesses” misrepresented the EU relationships with its members, they deceived the jury as to its motives and intentions and they made tenuous or even outright fictitious connections between the EU and people or organisations it has no relation to whatsoever.

Based on this evidence, the jury pronounced the verdict and the EU was convicted of being a bad friend and sentenced to exile away from “England’s green and pleasant land”.

In any decent, just and reasonable society, it would be the Judge’s responsibility to overturn this conviction on the basis that the witnesses for the prosecution lied their glutei maximi off, and that the prosecution were a bunch of unprincipled, self-serving suits.

There would be a re-trial, in which the truth was told and a real verdict achieved.

This is why we need a second referendum, truth, justice and morality must overcome lies, corruption and evil.