• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:#7426]How will Brexit go?***W:46]***

How will Brexit go?


  • Total voters
    114
Re: How will Brexit go?

The only good thing resulting from all this development (and I use the term "good" with bile rising in my throat) is that things are coming to a head. After what feels like decades of inactivity on the real issue, concentration on almost lunatic self-centredness having been preferred.

The cards are dealt:

1) there is no better withdrawal agreement conceivable as forthcoming from Bruxelles (Paris, Berlin, Vienna, The Hague etc., etc., etc.), so either take it or get off the pot.

2) The UK rejecting this one by whatever means (intentional down-voting, customary incapacity of acting at all, general incompetence due to stressing internal strife more than dealing with the issue, etc.) will mean "curtains". IOW crash-out with nothing.

3) Only other option left being to take it back to the people, possibly offering to choose either of the above two options with the third option of "no Brexit" thrown in.

I raise option three not with a view to (as I will no doubt be accused of) getting the remainers a chance to "keep taking this to the vote until the public finally gets it right", options 1) and 2) are always there without option 3) even being bothered with.

Meanwhile somebody needs to point out that the draft is a withdrawal agreement, not a completely future bound contract on UK-EU relations that'll have to be negotiated separately anyway. The draft holds pitfalls for both hardline Brexiteers as well as their "softer" counterparts, but life is not a cherry-cake.
Yea.. considering that a divorce bill has taken so long with so many problems... god help us on an actual trade deal...20 years maybe?

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
 
The only good thing resulting from all this development (and I use the term "good" with bile rising in my throat) is that things are coming to a head. After what feels like decades of inactivity on the real issue, concentration on almost lunatic self-centredness having been preferred.

The cards are dealt:

1) there is no better withdrawal agreement conceivable as forthcoming from Bruxelles (Paris, Berlin, Vienna, The Hague etc., etc., etc.), so either take it or get off the pot.

2) The UK rejecting this one by whatever means (intentional down-voting, customary incapacity of acting at all, general incompetence due to stressing internal strife more than dealing with the issue, etc.) will mean "curtains". IOW crash-out with nothing.

3) Only other option left being to take it back to the people, possibly offering to choose either of the above two options with the third option of "no Brexit" thrown in.

I raise option three not with a view to (as I will no doubt be accused of) getting the remainers a chance to "keep taking this to the vote until the public finally gets it right", options 1) and 2) are always there without option 3) even being bothered with.

Meanwhile somebody needs to point out that the draft is a withdrawal agreement, not a completely future bound contract on UK-EU relations that'll have to be negotiated separately anyway. The draft holds pitfalls for both hardline Brexiteers as well as their "softer" counterparts, but life is not a cherry-cake.

Some chumps still believe they can renegotiate:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46243745

Really though it's still the DUP who are the determining factor in all this; if they buy the deal then the Tory and Labour dissenters left over will probably cancel each other out but since there's nothing the DUP like more than building walls, and since nothing would suit them better than to start unpicking the Good Friday Agreement, it's hard to see them suddenly seeing a square as a circle.

There's an Arlene Foster quote to the effect of the worst thing Theresa May ever did in her childhood was run through a field whereas the worst she ever saw was her father crawl through the kitchen door after being shot in the head by the IRA.

May's never going to resign, after her previous disastrous flirtation with snap general election no chance of another, and since one likely consequence of the 'no deal' would be having to send troops back into Northern Ireland in the near future, which would not be a good look for her as PM but the DUP would welcome a second referendum is her get out of jail card, whatever its result, unlike with David Cameron. Who probably never imagined his future reputation would end up even lower than Tony Blair's.

One thing I'm not clear about from the timeflow chart at the bottom of that article is when the House of Lords gets to vote on the legislation and the monarch sign off on it. It would certainly be ironic if the Queen popped her clogs at a crucial moment.
 
Last edited:
Some chumps still believe they can renegotiate:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46243745
Yeah, kind of reminiscent of those here at the beginning of this thread (mentioned by me earlier) who clearly need their crystal ball re-calibrated.

Really though it's still the DUP who are the determining factor in all this; if they buy the deal then the Tory and Labour dissenters left over will probably cancel each other out but since there's nothing the DUP like more than building walls, and since nothing would suit them better than to start unpicking the Good Friday Agreement, it's hard to see them suddenly seeing a square as a circle.

There's an Arlene Foster quote to the effect of the worst thing Theresa May ever did in her childhood was run through a field whereas the worst she ever saw was her father crawl through the kitchen door after being shot in the head by the IRA.

May's never going to resign, after her previous disastrous flirtation with snap general election no chance of another, and since one likely consequence of the 'no deal' would be having to send troops back into Northern Ireland in the near future, which would not be a good look for her as PM but the DUP would welcome a second referendum is her get out of jail card, whatever its result, unlike with David Cameron. Who probably never imagined his future reputation would end up even lower than Tony Blair's.

One thing I'm not clear about from the timeflow chart at the bottom of that article is when the House of Lords gets to vote on the legislation and the monarch sign off on it. It would certainly be ironic if the Queen popped her clogs at a crucial moment.
I'm not sure on the bolded part either but am getting the feeling that what appears to be the envisaged crash-out won't need to go to the upper House anyway (let alone further).

Not envisaged by May, mind you and even not envisaged by the bunch of idiots listed further up.

The thing that annoys me most is this constant mantra (last seen by Leadsome on the tube tonight) of "getting the Brexit that people voted for".

Anybody professing to know what sort of Brexit people voted for is either completely delusional or a blatant liar. Since the nature of any Brexit was never up for the vote.
 
Brexiteer complains that deal will leave us without MEPs:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nadie-dorries-slams-brexit-deal-leave-remain-jk-rowling-a8639216.html

Theresa May’s Brexit deal has been slammed by arch-leave MP Nadine Dorries – because it means the UK will be left without any Members of the European Parliament.

The Tory backbencher, who campaigned tirelessly to get the country out of Europe, said Ms May's deal would leave the UK without any influence in Europe.

“This is a very sad place to be,” she told Sky News. “But unfortunately, the future of the country and of our relationship with Europe is at stake. This deal gives us no voice, no votes, no MEPs, no commissioner.”
 
Brexiteer complains that deal will leave us without MEPs:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...it-deal-leave-remain-jk-rowling-a8639216.html

Theresa May’s Brexit deal has been slammed by arch-leave MP Nadine Dorries – because it means the UK will be left without any Members of the European Parliament.

The Tory backbencher, who campaigned tirelessly to get the country out of Europe, said Ms May's deal would leave the UK without any influence in Europe.

“This is a very sad place to be,” she told Sky News. “But unfortunately, the future of the country and of our relationship with Europe is at stake. This deal gives us no voice, no votes, no MEPs, no commissioner.”


Wait.... that Mp is complaining that the brexit deal would give Britain no influence in Europe.... I thought brexit was about severing Britan from European influence?
 
Wait.... that Mp is complaining that the brexit deal would give Britain no influence in Europe.... I thought brexit was about severing Britan from European influence?
Yep that is what she is saying.... lets just say social media has not been kind to her and there are those demanding intelligence tests for MPs...

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
 
Yep that is what she is saying.... lets just say social media has not been kind to her and there are those demanding intelligence tests for MPs...

Yeah, she deserves any hit she gets really.

Dominic RAAB came across pretty well today on Andrew Marr's program - defending his comments about not realising the extent of trade through Dover and Calais but also explaining the 3 points that he couldn't agree on with regard to signing the deal with Barnier.


  1. Northern Ireland would be treated as a "third country" which will threaten the break up of the United Kingdom.
  2. The customs backstop plan means that the UK would remain tied to the EU with no say and no way of independently freeing itself without agreement of the EU.
  3. A clause setting out the UK's future relationship with the EU customs union single market hybrid.

The third point is the one that despite being Brexit secretary one line would have been inserted by Theresa May that he couldn't agree. Certainly he came across WAYYYY better than Baroness Chakrabarti who had a terrible interview. Despite my being a Remainer - if Raab becomes PM I will vote for him on the strength of today. (unless Ruth Davidson agrees to stand)
 
Yeah, she deserves any hit she gets really.

Dominic RAAB came across pretty well today on Andrew Marr's program - defending his comments about not realising the extent of trade through Dover and Calais but also explaining the 3 points that he couldn't agree on with regard to signing the deal with Barnier.

Did not see it, but in no way should anyone trust what Raab says. He is a hack. His comments about the extent of trade through Dover and Calais are indefensible.. and yes I have not heard his defending of the comments, nor do I care.. His original comments shows a total lack of basic knowledge that is needed to even remotely defend a stance of Brexit and a lack of knowledge of the EU and trade/business... he should be thrown out of politics altogether for such comments, let alone be in charge of a government.
[*]Northern Ireland would be treated as a "third country" which will threaten the break up of the United Kingdom.

Dont see the problem. Northern Ireland has always been treated as a "third country" by Westminster. It has also been a threat to the break up of the UK for over 100 years. Fact is, leaving the EU is a much bigger threat since not only Northern Ireland will be a problem, but Scotland will as well and most likely Wales when they find out that England will go back to its old ways of screwing them over.

[*]The customs backstop plan means that the UK would remain tied to the EU with no say and no way of independently freeing itself without agreement of the EU.

A necessary evil. The UK wanted out, and either we do it this way (or a similar way) or you leave the hard way. The EUs job is to protect the EU and common market and it can not have a rogue nation bypassing the rules and regulations at a whim. This does not prevent the UK from independently freeing it self... walk away, no problem, but that means hard Brexit and that is what this is suppose to avoid.

[*]A clause setting out the UK's future relationship with the EU customs union single market hybrid.
[/LIST]

Why not? Aint that the whole point of this catastrophe? You want to be in the market without being in the market...To gain all the benefits without paying anything. You want to be a leech on the EU and the World, and well frankly.. no thank you.

The third point is the one that despite being Brexit secretary one line would have been inserted by Theresa May that he couldn't agree. Certainly he came across WAYYYY better than Baroness Chakrabarti who had a terrible interview. Despite my being a Remainer - if Raab becomes PM I will vote for him on the strength of today. (unless Ruth Davidson agrees to stand)

Of course he is against nr 3.. because he is a hardcore imperialist. He actually thinks that the UK can do alone in the mean world and the only way he can do this by forcing a hard brexit. What he does not understand, like many right wing Brits.. the UK is a small nation in the north of Europe with very few friends and per international law that everyone else follows.. if it leaves the EU without a deal, it will have less standing and access than a freaking failed state. Why? Because the current government has been sabotaged from within by Raab and his treasonous lot and is totally unprepared to meet a 21st century global economy if and dare I say when.. the UK leaves the EU on the 29th of March next year. The fact that we are 4 months away and we still dont know if airplanes will be able to land or take off from the UK on the 30th of March is a big.. WHAT THE HELL? The priorities of the May government with the 5th column of treasonous scum like Raab within have been geared towards political self preservation, rather than practical and pragmatic priorities that benefit all Brits.

And vote for that piece of ****.. you got to be kidding me..rather vote for monkey... he would have a bigger clue about life.
 
Brexiteer complains that deal will leave us without MEPs:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...it-deal-leave-remain-jk-rowling-a8639216.html

Theresa May’s Brexit deal has been slammed by arch-leave MP Nadine Dorries – because it means the UK will be left without any Members of the European Parliament.

The Tory backbencher, who campaigned tirelessly to get the country out of Europe, said Ms May's deal would leave the UK without any influence in Europe.

“This is a very sad place to be,” she told Sky News. “But unfortunately, the future of the country and of our relationship with Europe is at stake. This deal gives us no voice, no votes, no MEPs, no commissioner.”
She's actually such a certified twit that rational wiki has given her special mention long before this latest outburst of dim-wittednes.

But any news outlet that actually gives her attention by granting interview time is hardly less idiotic.

Mind you, in slow news time (as constituted by nothing much less intelligent being forthcoming) I guess editors have to take what's there.
 
Can't disagree with Scottish Secretary David Mundell's description of Dominic Raab as a 'carpet bagger'.
 
Re: How will Brexit go?

To those not so familiar with UK proceedings but following the current brouhaha over a possible no-confidence vote on Theresa May, it need be understood that the current proceedings are an internal party issue of the Tories.

The vote, if carried out and successful in the sense of her opponents, concerns her party leadership. Not her position as PM.

For her to be toppled as PM would require a parliamentary non-confidence vote.

One can speculate of whether her position of PM would remain tenable if she lost the party leadership, but it's far too early for that.

Just to clarify ;)



This is technically true, but it would be inconceivable for May not to resign as PM should she lose the party leadership.


Therefore, effectively the Tory party MPs and members will choose the next PM should they choose to replace May. As of yet however there has been no leadership challenge triggered.


Indeed, Tory MPs opposed to May are divided. Some want her toppled now, others want to keep her in place and focus on trying to force a Brexit re-negotiation.

Whilst it has to be said that the EU has indicated that the current offer is the best available and they will not re-negotiate, it's certainly possible that if a true Brexit believing candidate replaced May as leader (and therefore as PM) and displayed some credible backbone to the EU, then they might reluctantly conclude that a re-negotiation was better than a no deal Brexit.
 
I just typed out a response then the internet froze.

Another day.
You may want to look for any form of text savers. There's a few out there which will work with the one browser or other (usually not with all).

Since I use FF I found "textarea cache" very helpful (this time of year the inclemency of weather often shoves me offline down here). But it's only for firefox.

"simple form recovery" will work on chrome, no idea what's best for internet explorer since I never use it.
 
...
Whilst it has to be said that the EU has indicated that the current offer is the best available and they will not re-negotiate, it's certainly possible that if a true Brexit believing candidate replaced May as leader (and therefore as PM) and displayed some credible backbone to the EU, then they might reluctantly conclude that a re-negotiation was better than a no deal Brexit.

As events of the past few years have proved, displaying 'credible backbone' is not a Brexiteer politician characteristic, whereas spineless posturing they got nailed (Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Davis, Fox, Farage etc etc).
 
As events of the past few years have proved, displaying 'credible backbone' is not a Brexiteer politician characteristic, whereas spineless posturing they got nailed (Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Davis, Fox, Farage etc etc).


I think it's worth noting that the negotiations have been conducted largely under the leadership of May and her close advisers like Olly Robbins, with an assist from an intensely pro EU civil service. The UK has consequently not exactly had a clear vision or belief, not had a true believer as PM, and that's fatal against a well oiled Brussels machine.
 
~ His original comments shows a total lack of basic knowledge that is needed to even remotely defend a stance of Brexit and a lack of knowledge of the EU and trade/business... he should be thrown out of politics altogether for such comments, let alone be in charge of a government

No, he made it clear he was adjusting to his new role when the speech was made. However, the general charge can be thrown at Brexiteers that they should have been more aware of what they were asking for and asking the rest of the country to vote for.

~ Dont see the problem. Northern Ireland has always been treated as a "third country" by Westminster. It has also been a threat to the break up of the UK for over 100 years. Fact is, leaving the EU is a much bigger threat since not only Northern Ireland will be a problem, but Scotland will as well and most likely Wales

Ignoring the hyperbole, Wales voted overwhelmingly for Brexit despite the well publicised costs. Northern Ireland - the vote was largely split on religious grounds. The Catholics will support anything that sees off the British govt and the Protestants want Brexit as it separates the province from the South. A united Ireland may come about but through population change.

~ The UK wanted out, and either we do it this way (or a similar way) or you leave the hard way

Agreed, however I have a feeling that there will be some form of shift. The EU has already shifted quite a way to allow the UK this far in the deal.

~ Why not? Aint that the whole point of this catastrophe? You want to be in the market without being in the market...To gain all the benefits without paying anything. You want to be a leech on the EU and the World, and well frankly.. no thank you.

Don't know why you're addressing me as

~ Of course he is against nr 3.. because he is a hardcore imperialist ~

Bit too much hyperbole there Pete. Can you accuse Corbyn (who was VERY lukewarm on Remain) or others like Peter Shore (RIP) and Tony Benn (RIP) of being imperialists?

I think it's worth noting that the negotiations have been conducted largely under the leadership of May and her close advisers ~

Funny, David Davis was in charge of the Brexit negotiations, Boris Johnston the Foreign Office and Liam Fox the Trade dept. Even Raab admitted that this morning - the only things that stopped him were the 3 clauses put in at the last minute by May herself or someone close to her.
 
No, he made it clear he was adjusting to his new role when the speech was made. However, the general charge can be thrown at Brexiteers that they should have been more aware of what they were asking for and asking the rest of the country to vote for.

Of course he is "adjusting" as he sees a chance for the top job. Just makes him more of a hypocrite.

Ignoring the hyperbole, Wales voted overwhelmingly for Brexit despite the well publicised costs. Northern Ireland - the vote was largely split on religious grounds. The Catholics will support anything that sees off the British govt and the Protestants want Brexit as it separates the province from the South. A united Ireland may come about but through population change.

Hyperbole? Come on... Wales voted 52% for Brexit, and that is hardly "overwhelmingly". Northern Ireland had a bigger vote against Brexit, but that is not overwhelmingly? :) Point is, as with much coming from the EU.. many Welsh do not know or understand that much of their infrastructure funding actually comes from the EU and that will poof now. Once that realisation hits then watch an attitude change, because no way in hell will England pay for infrastructure in Wales or Scotland.

Don't know why you're addressing me as

Cause you know... stuff! :)

Bit too much hyperbole there Pete. Can you accuse Corbyn (who was VERY lukewarm on Remain) or others like Peter Shore (RIP) and Tony Benn (RIP) of being imperialists?

Corbyn is more communist technocrat than imperialist, and dont know the two others very well if at all. Point is, on the Tory side there is a very dangerous streak of "imperialistic" attitude among the politicians and the voters. You see it in the expats here in Spain often.. the pensioners especially. Rule Britannia and all that jazz... great for chest thumping, but does not have much with reality anymore and has not been for decades... but they live in the dreamworld, where the UK is still a relevant world power. The fact is, the UK is only a world power because of NATO, the US and the EU. There are 20 countries with larger populations than the UK, and of those only a handful maybe can be called a world power and out of those it is only China, US, and Russia that can do it on their own. It is this realisation that the Tories have yet to see and it is driving the UK into the ground.

Now would Corbyn and Labour do a better job than May and the Tories.. no doubt, since you cant really do a worse job than May and the Tories. Do I trust Corbyn.. nope but he is the only realistic alternative to the Tories at the moment and unless the Tories start executing Brexit people in the party, then I dont see any alternative. Putting a Brexitter in charge will certainly not help one bit and only cause a hard brexit since those fools think they are equal negotiating partners with the EU... HAHAHA.. yea right.

This whole thing reminds me of watching Deadpool and the slow zamboni killing...
 
~.............................................Now would Corbyn and Labour do a better job than May and the Tories.. no doubt, since you cant really do a worse job than May and the Tories......................~
Oh trust me, Corbyn can. Okay, perhaps no worse but certainly just as badly. He's as much a prevaricating piece of pond scum, seeking his own personal advantages, as everybody else on the plate.
Do I trust Corbyn.. nope................~
Well, we sure have that in common.
but he is the only realistic alternative to the Tories at the moment.................~
for reasons already stated, he isn't. In fact there's no alternative around at the moment to the whole despicable self serving political class.

Corbyn doesn't have the balls to take a controversial position (like "vote for me and I'll take the whole shebang to the people once more, and be it with a various option poll"), cuz, like everybody else on both sides of the aisle, he's more pre-occupied with covering his own butt. His statement of the weekend over another referendum maybe being something for the future but not for today, speaks encyclopaedias of cowardice.

and unless the Tories start executing Brexit people in the party, then I dont see any alternative...............~
My favourite fantasy currently consists of rounding the whole bloody lot up and hanging them right outside of Westminster.

Tories, Labour, DUP, pro soft-Brexiteers, pro hard-Brexiteers, remainers that'll compromise and remainers that won't.

When a country's political establishment has deteriorated to the point that you can't simply choose between a party that is for what you want or the others can't choose against what you want, it's curtains for everybody.
 
Not got an English language link, soz, but surprise surprise the Spanish are suddenly unhappy about Gibraltar:

https://www.elperiodico.com/es/inte...altar-para-aprobar-acuerdo-del-brexit-7155405
The Spanish are ALWAYS unhappy about Gibraltar.

The UK could hand it to them on a platter with ribbons attached, the Spanish would demand compensation for the over 300 years they had to do without it.

In this particular case (for those not having Spanish) the chief item of dissent being that Spain's veto power over the status of the rock is not sufficiently covered. Put a bit simply but Madrid, equally deluded into still thinking itself to be a world power, is miffed that Brussels didn't include it in negotiations with London.

Hayzooz Achey Christo :roll:
 
Ceuta and Melilla are of course a different thing altogether lol
course they are.

Comparing apples and oranges or, as practically all of my Spanish neighbours would say "hidalgos y moros" (gentlemen and wogs):lol:
 
The Spanish are ALWAYS unhappy about Gibraltar.

The UK could hand it to them on a platter with ribbons attached, the Spanish would demand compensation for the over 300 years they had to do without it.

In this particular case (for those not having Spanish) the chief item of dissent being that Spain's veto power over the status of the rock is not sufficiently covered. Put a bit simply but Madrid, equally deluded into still thinking itself to be a world power, is miffed that Brussels didn't include it in negotiations with London.

Hayzooz Achey Christo :roll:

Cant really blame the Spanish that much... both sides are idiots, but in this case the British are by far the worst. Let me explain a bit why I think of this.

1) The Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 that gave Gibraltar to the UK is quite specific. It is only the "Rock".. not the present airport and football stadium areas and large parts of the harbour. This is actually part of the core problem. The British Empire literally stole Spanish land and frankly should give it back. When the plague hit the dirty pirate hold of Gibraltar (which was then), the British "asked nicely" to be able to set up a field hospital for quarantine on Spanish soil. That is the football stadium area today. Then the plague came back a few decades later, and they asked nicely again (no one said no to the British Empire at the time) and the Spanish allowed a new field hospital to be set up in what is the airport now. In both case, Spain did not have the power to take back land that was rightfully theirs and still is. Frankly I doubt many Spaniards could care less about the "Rock" since it is barely inhabitable, even today. These historical issues are the root cause in many ways and understandably if you ask me..or ask the Indians or other nations that were forced into the British Empire.

2) Present day issues are a problem..

A) Tax haven. Gibraltar has been a tax haven for a very long time and it has caused problems not only for the Spanish. Because Gibraltar is technically in the EU, then the uber wealthy own a small apartment in Gibraltar for tax purposes, but live in Spain in their multi million dollar villas. Hell even the freaking guy who leads Gibraltar, a rich lawyer.. lives in Spain! The amount of tax dodging going on is huge and that is ironic since Gibraltar does not have any real taxes and is pleading with Westminister for money more than not..

B) Criminality. It ties a bit into the above but deserves its own section. Gibraltar is used by gun and drug runners as a safe haven and the Gibraltarian police often protect these criminals. So when the Spanish police chase a gun/drug runner on the water, and he goes into Gibraltarian waters.. what does the Gib police do? Stop the Spanish police and let the criminals go. WTH? Time and time again this happens and I fully understand the Spanish stance on this.. the Gib police should be working with the Spanish police in stopping criminals, not protecting them. And that brings up another accusation.. corruption in Gibraltar. It is hard to prove but considering the corruption and money laundering that has happened in other British Overseas Territories, then it is not exactly far out so to say. Since the Gib police often protect criminals, then one has to ask.. why do they do that?

But lets be realistic here.. Gibraltar is Spanish in all but name. Why? If you go there, the primary language is.. Spanish. Only people you actually hear speaking English are the tourists and the cops. Shops and workers are all Spanish citizens or speakers. Both sides of the border need each other.

I do understand the Spanish viewpoint because Gib and other British Overseas Territories should not be put at the same level as Wales and Scotland. Most of the British Overseas Territories are tax havens and letting them inside any deal would be catastrophic.. unless it curbs their "tax haven" status, but the agreement aint exactly clear on that as far as I can see.

But we shall see.. chances are that the British will screw the pooch anyways and it will be a mute point.
 
I'm not enthused by May's deal, but I accept that the only way the UK can continue as a united entity, and without tearing itself apart, is by compromise. May's deal is an elaborate compromise which is not a great outcome for either die hard Remainers or Leavers, but at least it implements the democratic imperative of the referendum verdict.

Many people assume wrongly that all they need to do is secure a second referendum in order to reverse Brexit and make everything as it was before. This is flawed for two reasons:

a) Because it's very likely that the 'wrong' verdict would be returned again as anger mounts over the horrible divisive nature of those who would bring yet another referendum.

b) Because, based on pure logic and the British sense of fair play, even if the 'right' verdict was returned, a score of 1-1 is not usually considered decisive. It would settle absolutely nothing, and leave a whole class of millions of people feeling robbed, ignored, abused and alienated from a political system which would clearly and publicly have declared their views irrelevant.


So those of you who think Brexit is all a silly mistake caused by propaganda and stupid people really should think again. The opinion of stupid people counts equally with the opinion of those who think of themselves as intellectually and morally superior to everyone else.
 
Back
Top Bottom