Of course I would. Once you have children, you have a foot in the future. You look at what your counry will be like in 30 or 40 or 50 years. You don't focus so much on short term gains, but on long term gains.

If you feel that your country is heading down the wrong path, and altering that path will result in a better life for your children in 20 or 30 years at the expense of short term pain, of course you support altering the path of your country.

The people of the UK chose national sovereignty, at the risk of near term economic pain that the remainers shouted from the roof-tops, was sure to come. They did it anyway, because long term, they will be better off.

I appreciate the sentiment, but you risk alienating a lot of childless people with this rhetoric. I don't have children, but I like to think I care about the future of my continent, as well.

My brother-in-law, my sister, and pretty much all of our friends, are childless by choice or by circumstance, and past the point of having any. While they share our views, politically, it's not as personal to them. It's really hard to detect any level of fear or significant concern from them as to where the nation is heading over the next 30 or 40 years. They believe bad things will happen, but in a detached, non-emotional manner.

That's not really surprising to me. I am certain that I would not feel as passionate as I do, if I didn't have kids.

Many people have expressed the view the Angela Merkel would not be risking the culture of Germany or Europe, if she had children and grandchildren. My wife and I feel that way, to be sure.

>They did it anyway, because long term, they will be better off.

You make it seem like a fact and not what the leavers were shouting from the rooftops.

Because long term, they believe they will be better off.

And really, many people cast their vote as a protest vote for the current politics, rather than as a genuine opposition to EU.