Picture: ISTOCK
Picture: ISTOCK

Tuesday’s letters page was most informative, but it left me wondering how people think. Ian James, writing about Brexit, seemed to miss the point about so-called uninformed voters (Brexit and land link shaky, August 14), while Tshepo Diale took a swipe at AfriForum for taking a stand against expropriation without compensation, as if it was a threat to our hard-won democracy (AfriForum stirs trouble, August 14).

At the same time, Martin Zagnoev displayed a total lack of background knowledge when talking about the mass boycott of e-tolls as if corruption was not involved in it at all (Are e-tolls a scapegoat? August 14).

I see holding referendums as a tool for governments to push a populist agenda or sidestep the responsibilities they were elected to undertake. It is absolute drivel to maintain that the will of the people of the UK was definitive, when fewer than 52% voted to leave the EU. The information the public was given was woefully inadequate. To expect your population to really understand how complex businesses fit together without it being laid out fairly simplistically is unrealistic. The UK economy is intertwined with the EU. To suggest that the UK will do anything but suffer financially on exiting the EU is absurd.

The land question in SA is no less complex, and while I do understand our economy will suffer in the short term, it is something we need to debate in detail as a nation. I agree that AfriForum should not have released a list of farms that was not factual, but I can’t agree that it is a rogue organisation. Cringeworthy, maybe, but rogue, no.

Stephen W Burrow