On the 16th October 1854 in Peoria, Illinois, an obscure lawyer took to the platform to give a speech against the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
Horace White of the Chicago Evening Journal noted he had mastered his subject, knew what he was going to say, and that he knew he was right.
"Mr. Lincoln's eloquence was of the higher type, which produced conviction in others because of the conviction of the speaker himself."
During that 3 hour speech, Abraham Lincoln mocked and belittled the claims of oppression, tyranny, and lost sovereignty. 
By the end of Bleeding Kansas they had been riots, skirmishes, deaths, and violence within the very walls of the Senate
By 1860 that schism of ideals was not over, and the average Secessionist had a very clear list of the laws they wanted to change.
This is in stark contrast to the Brexit sovereignty argument. They want sovereignty, but can’t necessarily say for what.
They are the spoilt child who wants the toy, not to play with, but because they don’t have it.
They mostly don’t care if a family member loses their job, if they break up the country, or there is blood on the streets of Belfast.
THEY WANT THEIR TOY! And they aren’t going to feel like a “real child” until they have THEIR TOY!
Originally we explained to that child the toy is expensive, but the child told us the toy will pay for itself.
We explained it came in kit form and we didn’t know how to put it together, but the child told us it was easy and they knew how.
Every complicated bit of the process the child shrugged off and insisted that it is easy, and so now, the toy has arrived.
The child opens the box to find 3 pieces and a big box of pieces. The box unlocks with a key. They key costs more money.
We didn’t foresee this, so it’s unfair to blame the child, but we await for the child to acknowledge the need for more money.
The child tells us they can open it with something else, or the toy will work without these pieces.
Any idiot can tell the toy won’t work without those pieces, but they continue to claim otherwise. No acknowledgement comes.
Then the child can’t get the two pieces of Ireland to fit together. The child becomes angry and blames one of the pieces.
The child then begins to blame us. It’s our fault for “not believing in them”. We “want them to fail” that’s why it’s not going well.
“You didn’t explain the difficulty clearly enough!” exclaims the child. We definitely explained the difficulty clearly enough.
We suggest the Irish piece shouldn’t bend a certain way. We are “undermining them”, we are told.
It is now the turn of the immigration piece. The “Vienna thing” the child told us would do the trick was for a different toy.
He swings the immigration piece around his head treating it with disdain. You look on in horror. It is now “Everybody’s fault!”
We stand prepared to step in if the child tries to damage the toy, themselves, us, or any innocent bystanders.
We are only too aware you should try and take the toy back, try and recover some money, and maybe the child learnt a lesson.
But the child continues to blame us, the toy, and everybody but themselves. The child is angry, and shows no signs of self-awareness.
The child does, however, begin to worry the toy may be returned, and creates excuses for why it isn’t as simple as they said it would be.
“We’ll be billions of pounds richer!”, the child declares. Any idiot can see that we won’t be billions of pounds richer.
The child then desperately tries to buy time by misrepresenting what we said to suggest that we were wrong too.
We are already helping where we can. Trying to fix the damage and get some of the pieces together. We can do no more.
We're building a toy that won’t work well, for a child who can’t say how they will play with it, and who cares not how it will affect others.
Not wanting to do this isn’t about “yearning to return to the past” it’s about living up to the reality of what we’re doing.
If we aren’t going to take the toy back, or put it away until the child is older, then we cannot be an enabler of this behaviour.
So we will, as Abraham Lincoln did before us, stand up and we will mock. Not the Leave voters, but that spoilt Brexit child.
We will mock the idiocy it brings forth, the selfishness it inspires, and the corrupt values it seeks to instil.
We will scoff at the stubborn tantrums it throws, the blame it seeks to lay, the fibs it tells, and the ludicrous logic it promotes.
And, of course, we will continue to ridicule its attempts to sow division between ourselves, our allies, and our neighbours.
If we appear to be snobs by talking down to them, we’re not. We are talking down to them because they chose to climb into the gutter to win.
The solution is not to climb down into the gutter with them, or leave them there, but make sure they get back out.
Because, with the toy, or without the toy, this child’s behaviour will not be tolerated. /End
