Why don't they do what people vote for?

It felt very strange to be witnessing the European Parliament Elections without taking part.

On the day, I was in the Devon village of Hemyock, and there was a steady procession of local people making their way to the Polling Station, a venerable Church School building. How very English it looked. How very remote the European Parliament. And yet the result, I now saw, did matter. There would be fallout from these elections.

I couldn't help thinking that for most people in this country the act of casting a vote was indeed a way of sending one of two stark messages: I want to go; or I want to stay. And as we now know, in England and Wales the map turned Brexit Party-coloured nearly everywhere. (Source: BBC News website)

Geographically, it was almost totally for Brexit. The actual voting figures told a slightly different story; one that gave comfort to those still hoping to stop the process. But I'd say that the voting pattern revealed unarguably that a lot of people, in nearly all parts of the country, were fed up with delay and clamouring for Brexit.

And it must surely be supposed that they had the facts. After three years of non-stop argument and analysis on both sides, the electorate have surely become much better-informed on what Brexit entails? Or have had, at least, three more years to carefully consider the matter. Yet Brexit is still wanted by a clear majority.

Of course two-thirds of the electorate didn't vote at all, myself included. I'm guessing that, like me, they had dismissed these elections as an irritating sideshow; and, like me, had not wanted to take part because that would be to perpetuate a connection with an important EU institution. Even so, I watched those Hemyock locals go into the Polling Station rather wistfully, feeling that I'd disenfranchised myself. Why hadn't I organised a postal vote? I won't let this happen next time. I will want to cast a vote, whatever the choices available.

Now that this days-long election is over, and the results are finally in, it's clear now that (a) the electorate is getting very impatient - Brexit needs to go ahead asap; and (b) it will have to be a no-deal departure.

It will have to be 'no deal' for two reasons.

First: Mrs May's deal is fixed, yet flawed, and deeply unpopular. It has satisfied nobody else at Westminster.

Second: I can't see how a post-election EU can possibly allot any more time for further negotiations. The new set of people in control will want to get on with proving that their election or appointment was well justified. To them, Brexit is 'old business' that will have to be set aside so that fresh matters can be addressed.

These people will say to us, 'It's clear that you are still going. And if your EU Parliamentary members are going to give us a hard time, we'd rather not have you. It's a shame that no deal was actually settled between us, but we must leave it there. Somebody must draw a line, and we are after all the senior organisation. We have the authority. You are just the departing member. So we say: no more negotiations, no more extensions to the exit date. You have to go at the end of October. Let's set in motion what we can - essential border, trade and security procedures, basic health arrangements, and so forth - and do our best, in the short period ahead, to ensure that we are both as ready as we can be for Day One of your independent existence outside the EU.' They might also add, 'You'll be on your own. Goodbye and good luck.' But I am not expecting it.

Will our politicians do what needs to be done, in preparation for this unavoidable October departure? Apparently not. A lot of politicians are still fearful of publicly embracing this as an inevitability. That annoys me. I suppose leadership elections couldn't be ducked, but calls for a 'People's Vote' seem like passing the buck and playing for time.

And yet so much time has already been wasted. It will be a 'chaotic Brexit' if nothing is put in hand.