I have suggested for some time that the UK will leave the EU without a deal in October. The reasoning has been quite simple. First, it's what UK law, passed by the current parliament, requires. Second, I have not been able to see the parliamentary arithmetic changing sufficiently to change that in the time available, which is remarkably short.
Yesterday's defeat of Labour's attempt to stop No Deal rather proved my point. It was aided by eight Labour MPs voting for the government and between 13 and 17 Labour MPs abstaining (there are conflicting reports on the number who were paired, it seems). If those MPs had voted with their party No Deal might have been prevented. It may well not be now.
Weariness with this process has reduced the shock of MPs voting to cause significant harm to the UK. It is, rather bizarrely, something that we have come to expect. It has been normalised, just as a No Deal Brexit, which was never on the table in 2016, has apparently become what people thought they voted for in the referendum. Maybe this is how extremism really gets its way: the relentless presentation of what is not true as that which is desirable bends the mind of sufficient numbers to be believed. And then, when it is too late for remorse to have any consequence, the process is repeated to make the sacrifice made somehow appear justified.
There will, I fear, be much propaganda to come of this sort. I remain quite sure that the UK civil service, UK business, and those whose political judgement appears sound, are all right to think that No Deal Brexit is not just folly, but profoundly reckless. But some in Labour, and all the Tories, and a minority in the country seem to think otherwise. And they have the momentum with them. It increasingly feels like we will have to live through the hell that follows.
And I still cannot exonerate Labour from blame in all this. Of course I hold the Conservatives most responsible. And it looks as if any new leader will only make matters worse. But Labour's inability to create and hold a line is staggering. When Welsh and Scottish Labour are both pro a second vote and Remain now, but Labour as a whole still has no obvious policy, then the shambles of yesterday happens. And it goes unpunished too. Which still makes me think this is what Corbyn really wants.
So let me also say, yet again, that there is no such thing as a likely Lexit. Those who think the country will swing to the left and vote for resoundingly socialist policy post Brexit are as deluded as many Tory leadership candidates are on the chance of renegotiating the EU Withdrawal Agreement. It is not going to happen. So a vote to Leave is a vote for the hard Right.
And most worryingly, that's also a vote to ignore climate change, and all that it requires, in all likelihood, because I cannot see the right ever delivering on that. And that may well be the most depressing aspect of all this, from amongst a crowded field.
Yesterday was a bad day for this country. There may be many more to come.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
You are right.
Yesterday my public sector employer revealed yet another review aimed at cutting costs.
So yet again we/I are to feel hunted down as the budgets get ever smaller. It seems that local government has no future.
But all developers want to do in my sector is build high value executive homes that make a huge profit.
It’s bad news where I am.
Surely the relentless attempts to overturn the result of the referendum have had a hand in pushing Leavers to this point.
As a result of these, even positions that were seen as reasonable at the time of the referendum are now seen through the lens of Remainers trying to prevent Brexit happening, and are rejected on that basis.
Paradoxically, if Remainers had genuinely accepted the result of the referendum (rather than just giving lip service to acceptance, whilst actually pursuing attempts to obstruct, delay, and overturn it) then it would have been much easier to develop and pursue a sensible policy.
But why should those who realise that Andy Brexit is destructive not say so?
Since when did a referendum deny 16+ million people the right to speak?
Of course those who believe that any Brexit will be destructive can say so. Indeed, they said as much during the referendum campaign, and have continued to say so since then.
There is, though, a distinct difference between saying that you believe it to be a bad idea, and actively attempting to overturn it.
The simple fact that Leavers are by and large in favour of a no-deal rather than a sensible deal is largely as a result of the blatant attempts of Remainers to overturn the result of the referendum.
It is not the words of Remainers that make Leavers feel this way, rather it is their actions that cause this. As a result of these actions, Leavers see any attempt at a sensible deal as being something that Remainers will try to use in the future to shoehorn us back in to the EU.
Remainers bear a lot of responsibility for the political chaos we currently see, because they have refused to accept the result of the referendum.
I think you have a real proble with understanding democracy
The whole point of democracy is that it is a continual attempt to overthrow the policy endorsed by the electorate
It is your claim that there is a single decision, taken and never to be challenged, even when no one knew what it meant and it has since been claimed it meant something very different from what people voted for, that is profoundly undemodratic
How do I know? Those who support it talk about suspending parliamentary democracy to get it
“It is your claim that there is a single decision, taken and never to be challenged, even when no one knew what it meant and it has since been claimed it meant something very different from what people voted for, that is profoundly undemodratic”
No, not never to be challenged. It was a once in a lifetime decision.
https://twitter.com/Change_Britain/status/1133988410564071424
Remainers seem to forget that.
We elect parliament every five years or so. We can’t after 2 years, say oops, we didn’t know what we were voting for, can we have another election?
So give it lifetime and we can have another referendum to join or stay out of the EU. I have no problem with that.
You can’t say we didn’t know what we were voting for. With all the doom and gloom projections, people still voted out.
https://twitter.com/Change_Britain/status/1125311043037814785
If we had a competent government, we could have got a good deal prior to leaving the EU. Due to the government incompetence, the best thing is to leave without a deal and then strike a trade deal with the EU after we leave.
I would remind you that it is also said Scotland resolved independence for a generation
It certainly did not
And parliament is sovereign
Which it has also been in rejecting no deal and May’s deal
And this from the only party committed to Brexit
Have you considered that there is no such thing as a good deal?
And there is certainly No Deal either?
“Paradoxically, if Remainers had genuinely accepted the result of the referendum”
This is absolute nonsense. It was mostly the extreme leavers in parliament that refused to accept a compromise. If they had done so we would have left the EU by now.
Agreed
Wasn’t it Brexiters in the ERG and DUP that prevented Brexit happening? If they had supported May’s deal it would have happened.
You are right
They could have had a deal any day they wanted one
Hang on?
Who is pushing who here?
The pushing started when an idiot Prime Minister introduced the concept of a viable ‘No Deal’ into the mix as a ‘bargaining chip’. A bargaining chip created by those lease likely to be affected by BREXIT but most likely to affect real people like me (and maybe you?).
‘No Deal’ – as in the UK just walks away from a complex but effective trade deal and then what?
Look – people may not have known when voting for BREXIT what they were actually voting for – but one thing is certain – they were not voting to make their lives harder. A ‘No Deal’ is exactly that because an orderly BREXIT is going to cause enough trouble as it is.
It’s known in England as ‘Cutting Your Nose off to Spite Your Face’ I believe.
And too many Little Englanders are in favour of it – the sort it has been revealed who are doing very well thank you in the middle class, well to do and affluent south east I believe where – swaddled in their ‘culture of contentment’ – making such people feel that BREXIT and No Deal couldn’t possible harm them because they have been so successful in the wonderful British economy.
Yeah right……………….
You ignore the fact that most conservative MPs wanted and voted for a deal. We are in position now where a no deal situation is quute possible because Labour MPs chose to follow their leader against wishes of their own electorate and refuse to vote for purely political reasons connected with the desire for another election. If we should end up with no deal its Labour who will be largely responsible.
Oh come on….there may be real problems with the deal as it stands. You want people to ignore that fact (because it is a fact)?
Exactly. Job of an opposition is to oppose. If the opposition support the government we become a one party state.
Indeed
@Terry
What a bizarre piece of reasoning.
You say “Labour MPs chose to follow their leader against wishes of their own electorate”, implying that electorate wished to remain in the EU.
So Corbyn should have whipped those MP’s to ensure May’s Withdrawal Agreement went through, ensuring we definitely left? And on the detrimental terms that two thirds of the Commons recognised them to be?
Wow, “shooting yourself in the foot” is too kind a description of such behaviour. Of course Corbyn should not have done that, not just for Party advantage, but in the interests of the UK as a whole. And this is quite apart from the fact that May’s WDA probably wouldn’t have passed, even if voting had been confined to the Tories and the DUP, though I’m open to correction on that, as I haven’t crunched the votes.
What you can say is that Corbyn and Labour should have come out wholeheartedly in favour of Remain and Reform, but there’s no guarantee that would have garnered a Commons majority, as the various votes, including the recent one, on Labour’s attempt to have Parliament take control of the process to prevent a “No Deal”.
And besides, it ignores Corbyn’s honourable attempt to speak for both Leavers and Remainers, and to bring the country together to face up to its real problems.
As Larry Elliot argued here https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/06/corbyn-labour-leavers-remainers-second-referendum-eu both are needed.
Alas, it does appear that that strategy has run its course, but the EU elections demonstrated what may be the possible outcome of its failure – a polity divided between an incipiently near-Fascist BREXIT Party led by a demagogue, and containing members (and a Leader) who call Remainers saboteurs and traitors and enemies of the people (so summoning up the threat of “show trials” and “Re-education Centres” if they won power – don’t think “It couldn’t happen here!”, because it could!), while on the other side a renascent Lib-Dem Party that said “Bollocks to BREXIT”, so discounting the 52% who voted to leave.
Each of those effectively seeks to expunge from our polity those who voted the other way from them, which only highlights the honourable character of what Corbyn and Labour sought to achieve.
That that strategy has, alas, failed seems clear, and Labour needs to refashion its strategy as a matter of pressing urgency.
For be assured, with all its many faults, (which I recognise – “timid” Labour may be, but even Labour’s timidity is, by a quantum factor, preferable to anything any other real contender for power can offer) under our present broken FPTP system, only Labour can defeat the headless chicken Tories (who seem now in danger of acquiring a vacuous new head, in the shape of Boris “the Bumbling Barbarian” Johnson), and implement policies for the good of the 99%, rather than the 1%.
My hope is that Labour wins power, and then goes in for real, thoroughgoing constitutional reform, including REAL PR via STV, then goes to the country again, producing a result that leads to a Red-Green Coalition – the Greens having won the many seats their vote would entitle them to, and allowing the country to really attack the climate and biodiversity breakdown emergencies, both of which are of far greater importance than even such necessities as a revived NHS, public control of utilities and the railways, a National Education Service, and new measures to address homelessness, all of which Labour has proposed.
On that, it is worth noting that it was Labour’s initiative that saw the Commons vote for a Declaration of Climate Emergency”. Timid they may be, and I would wish them to be bolder, but their heart is in the right place, even if, as Richard has clearly demonstrated, they’re way off beam on economic theory, being apparently still scared of bond vigilantes, or some such. If only Labour would call the neo-liberals’ bluff – they are, after all, only the little old man behind a curtain, posing as the “great and terrible Wizard of Oz”!
Andrew
Labour are still ‘timid’ in my view about a lot of policy areas – but this cat and mouse game they have played about BREXIT may back fire big time. Since when and why won’t a party agree to be the cavalry?
Be assured that I share your aspirations for the party. Mind you – what else can one believe in at the moment? It’s a poor field out there.
“under our present broken FPTP system”
Something we can all agree on.
I had a look around for PR and found STV but also found “Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR Voting)” http://www.dprvoting.org/ which is better for single-member constituencies but could be confusing for most voters with two votes on the ballot paper.
I have an alternative “Simple Direct and Proportional Representation”.
1. Locally. keep FPTP. Simple and keeps direct representation.
2. Parliament. Weight votes for Proportional Representation
If Party A gets 24% of the vote and 1 MP, that MP’s vote is worth 24 (1×24) in a parliament of 100 MPs, the other 99 MPs weighted to add up to 76.
If Party A gets 24% of the vote and 2 MPs, the 2 MPs votes are worth 24 (2×12) in a parliament of 100 MPs, the other 98 MPs weighted to add up to 76.
If Party A gets 51 of the vote and 1 MP, that MP’s vote is worth 51 (1×51) in a parliament of 100 MPs, the other 99 MPs weighted to add up to 49.
Every single vote in the whole country absolutely matters. In a marginal seat, even if your choice doesn’t become the local MP, you still have a local directly answerable representative, your vote goes towards the overall total in the country which can definitely affect who is in power. So everyone is represented.
To me, it seems obvious and simple. Please let me know any problems you see with it.
I admit, I did not find that at all obvious
Sorry
And why do we need FPTP anyway?
Of single seats?
“I admit, I did not find that at all obvious
Sorry
And why do we need FPTP anyway?
Of single seats?”
Thank you for your reply.
The existing system is FPTP for your local MP. Everyone understands that locally, if you get the highest vote, then you get to represent your local constituency in Parliament. And there are many hard working MPs helping out their local constituency. I think we agree on that. And I assume (making an ASS out of U and ME) that local MPs live locally and are involved with local issues (There will be (some!) exceptions, of course!)!
From this poll https://www.comresglobal.com/polls/comres-daily-telegraph-poll-june-2019/, the Greens have 5% of the vote and only 1 seat. The SNP have 3% of the vote and 55 seats.
Why should 3% of the country have 55 votes and 5% of the country have 1 vote. Blatantly unfair and undemocratic.
If 3% of the country voted SNP with 55 seats, then the 55 seats represent 3% of the country and so in a Parliament vote, which represents the whole country, the 55 SNP votes should be weighted to represent 3% of the votes in Parliament.
Similarly, if 5% of the country voted Green with 1 seat, then that 1 seat represents 5% of the country and so in a Parliament vote, that 1 Green vote should be weighted to represent 5% of the votes in Parliament.
Is there anything unclear in my explanation?
So you have Parliament Proportional Representation => maybe that is a better name than Simple Direct and Proportional representation and simpler to understand? Naming is very important as Change UK found out!!!
For local councils with multiple candidates for an area, I’m happy with STV.
But what is wrong with proper STV?
I do not get why you are seeking to keep FPTP and single seat constituencies
That was my question
I support PR – but why make it absurdly complicated?
“and a minority in the country seem to think otherwise”, this just shows the ignorance of the we-know-better crowd such as yourself. We voted OUT, not half out, not out with a deal and not out but stay in the customs union. The propaganda sent out by the government specifically said its either “Stay in the European Union or Leave the European Union” (the link is at the bottom just in case you have conveniently forgot), all politicians just before the referendum specifically said leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market and customs union. The remainers need to stop throwing their toys out of the pram and accept democracy.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/525022/20160523_Leaflet_EASY_READ_FINAL_VERSION.pdf
With the greatest of respect, I am sure a few might have done what you say, but given that almost no one suggested this in that campaign
Saying Leave the EU meant no deal is, respectfully, absurd. That was simply not said
And I do completely accept democracy: we live in a parliamentary democracy and have no other model
‘Accept Democracy’ ?!!!
You’ve got to be having a laugh my dear Carlos!
Where was the democracy in the switch by the Leavers to a No Deal – something they are on record of NOT saying before the result – even Daniel Hannan spoke of staying in the single market. The truth is they won unexpectedly and then decided to go for auto self destruct big time. They moved upped the ante and moved the goal posts after the fact. After the fact.
Should we accept a democracy that illicitly collected people’s online data and then sold it to those campaigning to leave so that they could send lies directly to these people and influence their partaking of democracy?
Should the democratic outcomes you are so keen on be funded from unknown, unverified sources – as is increasingly revealed about the Leave Campaign?
All the above happened Carlos. It does not sound like democracy to.
Democracy is more than a vote Carlos; democracy is a process as well and wilful blindness likes yours to this fact is not good enough.
Agreed
Well said
I would have said it even better if I could type properly!! Dear me!
Do you really think Labour coming out strongly as pro-Remain would have made any difference to the parliamentary arithmetic? I can’t see how at all. Neither can I see how it would help them electorally when you look at the number of leave leaning seats they need to hold or win to form a government. I admit it’s a while since I look at any analysis of that, and perhaps the situation has changed or could change. I’m very pro-Remain, and it might have made me feel better if Corbyn did strongly back a second vote or attack the original referendum as being based on lies. but I can’t really see for certain how it could have made any difference.
ALost all polling says that if Labour was pro-Remain it would win enormously
Have you noticed what happened in the EU election?
Are you really so confident in a few polls? I know a few Labour voters who voted Lib Dem or Green as a protest in the EU elections but would back Labour in a General election. It’s not just the level of support for remain but how it looks at constituency level. I would recommend reading this analysis of seats that Labour need to win.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/02/04/labours-path-to-vicotry-is-through-leave-voting-conservative-marginals/
I think it deserves consideration.
I have considered it
Hi,
“just as a No Deal Brexit, which was never on the table in 2016”
It was always a possibility.
https://twitter.com/Change_Britain/status/1121711767275622400
With respect – it was dismissed as an idea, almost universally
There is a collective amnesia amongst those who say that No Deal is what we were promised if we left. There are copious examples of Farage saying how well Norway and Switzerland did https://youtu.be/fNCwcTu9U6U , Owen Patterson is there saying we would be crazy to leave the single market https://youtu.be/vhb-DLqelN8 and dear deluded David Davis saying we would be able to get the same deal as we have now etc. https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-secretary-david-davis-twitter-resign-theresa-may-conservative-party-8438651
No one was offering no deal.
Exactly right
No one suggested it, at all
Thousands of UK citizens living in the EU have been systematically left to rot by this hateful bunch of so called “lawmakers” . Many will be forced to sell up and return to the UK as they will not meet non EU immigration requirements of the countries they live in .. One of which will be private health cover , for many impossible. This act of betrayal will not be forgotten or forgiven .
“it was dismissed as an idea, almost universally” – even so, it was was the final resort if no deal was agreed.
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7851 “The UK had an overall trade deficit of -£67 billion with the EU in 2017. A surplus of £28 billion on trade in services was outweighed by a deficit of -£95 billion on trade in goods.”
In a simplistic view, a trade deficit of -£67 billion, means in theory, if EU paid the UK £66 billion as access to trade with the UK, it would still benefit the EU by £1 billion. No brainer for the EU to pay UK £66 billion to continue trading with the UK for their net benefit of £1 billion.
So in 2.5 years, with a trade deficit of -£67 billion, May has agreed to pay £39billion to remain in the EU (transition period) with no voting rights and no way to terminate the treaty. She gave away our trade deficit advantage. Bonkers!!!
We are paying the EU to sell to us, forever!!! With no get out clause, they can dictate whatever terms and conditions in a resulting trade agreement and we couldn’t object. Continue with WA and pay and have no voting rights or agree to an even worse Trade Agreement because we have no leverage to ask for anything better!! No wonder the EU isn’t budging on the WA, its a fantastic deal for them. We contribute to their budget with no voting rights. Marvellous!
We expected a Margaret Thatcher to get a good deal prior to leaving but instead, we got total capitulation, so the fallback is WTO to start with. And from there we negotiate Free Trade Deals.
It’s the sheer economic illiteacy of this type of comment that makes me despair of those who think they have arguments for Leave
” a trade deficit of -£67 billion, means in theory, if EU paid the UK £66 billion as access to trade with the UK, it would still benefit the EU by £1 billion.”
What theory would that be? No a particularly good one – are you aware for instance, that trade does not consist of sending a series of gifts to EU counties – we do get stuff in return.
🙂
Quite so
“They would not even pay the profit margin on the trade, which is vastly smaller
It would appear that you know remarkably little about trade, business, economics, or much else come to that” I see this in email reply but not on the site.
Thanks for educating me on that.
Still, a trade deal benefits the EU more than the UK.
No: overall the estimate is it broadly benefits each equally when all earnings and flows are considered
Except that there are 6 to 7 times more than them of us
So it matters a lot more to us actually
“No: overall the estimate is it broadly benefits each equally when all earnings and flows are considered
Except that there are 6 to 7 times more than them of us
So it matters a lot more to us actually”
Can you explain why a trade deficit of £67 billion matter more to us than to them? Thanks.
Trade deficits do not matter greatly if all are happy with them
They are, after all, just a number
No, the trade matters less to them than us
That was my point
And I defy you to say that’s wrong
“Trade deficits do not matter greatly if all are happy with them
They are, after all, just a number
No, the trade matters less to them than us
That was my point
And I defy you to say that’s wrong”
Not trying to defy; trying to understand.
Trying a Richard Feynman 5-year-old example to understand e.g. reducing it to simplest possible terms to try and understand.
Let’s say a car is £1 billion.
At the end of a year, the UK has 67 cars and EU has £67 billion from the UK.
If the UK had £1000 billion at the start of the year, then at the end of the year it would have £933 billion.
If this carried on then the UK would be in debt and end up owing £1.763 trillion https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicspending/bulletins/ukgovernmentdebtanddeficitforeurostatmaast/september2018
Help me to understand what I have got wrong in principle.
Oh dear…you seem to think government and trade deficits are the same thing
Start again
And there is no mechanism for permanent trade imbalances: it’s called currency revaluation. It’s gradual and that’s fine
Yes, there is a trade deficit
But that does not indicate that they will pay £67 billion to continue doing the trade
They would not even pay the profit margin on the trade, which is vastly smaller
It would appear that you know remarkably little about trade, business, economics, or much else come to that
Corbyn says we need to let the people decide.
How much more stupid is it possible to get ?
We were here with joining the Euro. We were supposed to need a referendum to decide a matter which politicians themselves didn’t understand the consequences of. Talk about deja vu. Yet something like fox hunting which would be quite appropriate subject for a referendum parliament keeps to itself for tribal reasons and then does bugger-all to enforce.
Frankly I give up. I have no confidence whatsoever that the shambles which purports to be an Opposition in parliament could even win a confidence vote. I’m not sure they even want to, they are so totally feckless.
Corbyn says we need to let the people decide.
How much more stupid is it possible to get ?
We were here with joining the Euro. We were supposed to need a referendum to decide a matter which politicians themselves didn’t understand the consequences of. Talk about deja vu. Yet something like fox hunting which would be quite appropriate subject for a referendum parliament keeps to itself for tribal reasons and then does bugger-all to enforce.
Frankly I give up. I have no confidence whatsoever that the shambles which purports to be an Opposition in parliament could even win a confidence vote. I’m not sure they even want to, they are so totally feckless.
Come-on you Tory old geezers and fossils elect Bojo ! Finish it off. Scuttle the ship.
I wonder if I’m under medicated today ….?
“So let me also say, yet again, that there is no such thing as a likely Lexit. Those who think the country will swing to the left and vote for resoundingly socialist policy post Brexit are as deluded as many Tory leadership candidates are on the chance of renegotiating the EU Withdrawal Agreement. It is not going to happen. So a vote to Leave is a vote for the hard Right.”
This is quite humorous from a proponent of MMT which surely has a less chance of being implemented by the UK government than Lexit (which only requires leaving the European Union and then a small increase in the Labour vote from 2017).
It strikes me as very odd that you constantly defend the EU when they are the world’s foremost proponents of fiscal austerity. And I have yet to hear an explanation of how the UK could implement MMT while current Freedom of Movement laws apply as it would mean that reaching full employment would be practically impossible.
MMT happens now
For the record
The rest is about as inaccurate
I’m genuinely interested in how the UK reaches full employment as part of the single EU labour market?
Some claim it already is
The reality is the answer is investment
If you want people to believe you understand MMT you must stop saying it can be ‘implemented.’ MMT is a way of describing and understanding how money and taxes operate in an economy with a sovereign currency. It is not a set of policies or even advice to be implemented or followed. It just says base your policies on real resources and real constraints and the real powers a government has. It sounds simple put like that but when properly understood it has very far reaching implications that totally undermine current macroeconomic ideas.
And there is a separate but related problem of agreeing/deciding what is the purpose of our economy (or any economy.) MMT can inform you about how to achieve that purpose using fiscal tools. It will help you create economically sound and effective policy but it is not itself prescriptive.
And seeing that flows of capital (including Labour) are real they are just what MMT is about. Freedom of movement presents no problem for MMT.
Aiming to achieve full employment of course is policy. So not MMT. But MMT does have useful things to say about the real constraints and real costs and benefits involved. Full employment may well be one of the public purposes you wish to fulfil. If so you could devise policies to do that based on MMT. In so doing you would almost certainly expose NAIRU to be the nonsense it is. MMT does show that like austerity full employment is a choice and can always be afforded.
I agree with you
A HoC committee published a report in 2017 on “Lessons learned from the EU referendum”. One of their conclusions was: “If the results of referendums are to command the maximum of public support, acceptance and legitimacy, then they must be held on questions and issues which are as clear as possible. Voters should be presented with a choice, where the consequences of either outcome are clear. There is bound to be uncertainty arising from what might be termed a “bluff-call” referendum, like the 2016 EU referendum, … The UK Government initiated the process which led to the referendum, despite being against the suggested proposal, and with the aim of using a negative result to shut down the debate about the question at issue. … There could, however, have been more positive efforts to explain, and therefore to plan for, the consequences for voters in the event of either outcome. This would have required providing impartial consideration of the outcome which the Government clearly did not want.”
Reading between the lines, they said there was no planning, no manifesto, no explanations of consequences for either outcome, no nothing.
Dr Paul Jourdan in a blog published by Reform Scotland doesn’t mince his criticism of the whole shambolic process. https://reformscotland.com/2019/04/should-the-uk-hold-another-referendum-on-the-eu-dr-paul-jourdan/
And to my mind the lack of preparation, the failure to spell out the consequences of leaving, consequences which needed to be debated in a mature fashion, considering the difficult issues such Ireland, trading relationships and so on and then the resulting free-for-all where no lie was so outlandish as to be inadmissible – this bourach rendered the whole exercise invalid.
Splendid stuff Graham – thanks.
The fact that this sort of stuff is not in the public sphere enough tells us that the political focus of BREXIT is all wrong.
“No deal Brexit” is a misleading phrase (and probably helps to make it more attractive than it should be), as, if we did leave in this way, we would immediately have to start trying to negotiating a “deal” with the EU to improve on WTO terms. Whilst many countries do trade with the EU on WTO terms, it is far more common to have trade agreements with neighbouring countries because they are effectively local markets and it would be significantly against our interests not to try and improve on WTO terms, although after Brexit we would be doing so from a far weaker position.
Agreed
And imagine how keen they will be if we refuse to pay what we owe