|
Post by Big Blue on Mar 19, 2019 15:21:58 GMT
Some "article" in a national newspaper (The Telegraph) suggested that the secret writer (anonymous Civil Servant that claimed to have been there all of 30 months since graduation) had witnessed widespread Remain tendencies among the mainly left-wing Civil Service. I responded as follows:
The fact that the Civil Service is dominated by the left wing is nothing newsworthy. However there is nothing to say that the left wing is predominantly filled with remainers, as shown by the UKIP gains made in traditionally left wing constituencies at the last GE.
What we can say about the Civil Service and those that populate it is that they are fully aware of the personalities, abilities, shortcomings and in some cases fantasies of the elected parliamentary members. It is no surprise that the Civil Service is predominantly minded towards remain given what they know about those that would want to leave and what kind of mess they would be left to manage in the first instance and then clean up after a currently unknown period of time.
I should also point out that the issue of Brexit was caused by a Conservative party need to finally oust its own demons, in that the party is split (yes it remains so) as to what its long term manifesto position on the EU should be. The purpose of the referendum vote (like it or not) was to set out a position for the party, allowing a manifesto position to be taken that would appeal to the majority of voters to therefore remain [sic] in power. What they didn't know was that the ballot boxes all belonged to a lady named Pandora.
Cameron assumed that there would be a remain majority and that would give him the ability to keep the exit-EU fans at bay, indeed tell them to keep their views under their party-approved hats. Instead the entire premise of the UK parliament is now seen as a worldwide laughing stock, in that we held a plebiscite and still don't know what to do with its outcome.
What's your take?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 19, 2019 15:26:10 GMT
I don't think I'm allowed to make my views public on this.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Mar 19, 2019 16:02:26 GMT
I think we are never/were never going to leave and all the last 30 months have all been about throwing enough chaff up to confuse the matter sufficiently so we stay by sheer inertia.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 16:15:14 GMT
I believe that the EU negotiating team have been sowing dissent and fear among the public ably assisted by remain mp's AND the leave mp extremists. Between them they have so screwed up the situation that even leaving is in doubt. All this nonsense about "This is not the brexit the public voted for"! OK, without a ballot paper that had selections for leave with deal, leave without a deal or remain it is impossible to say WHAT the individual member of the public voted for. I vote to leave no bloody deals, arguments or posturing from anyone in the mad house, funny farm, call it what you will. The situation the eu negotiation team has always been after is to so mess up the situation they scare us into remaining and sadly there is indeed a chance this will happen. So much for the bovine about "Doing what the electorate want them to do", oft quoted by idiots from the various partly political dooh dah bands. democracy is wonderful is it not? The multitudes messed up AGAIN by the muppets. Stick them in an old oil tanker or container ship, properly prepared of course, and sink the thing as an artificial reef. Do something useful with them as they cannot be used for doh-nuts.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Mar 19, 2019 16:21:18 GMT
I still think we should have stayed. If you really want to fuck something up good and proper you need to be inside it, not standing on the outside.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Mar 19, 2019 16:31:24 GMT
If you really want to fuck something up good and proper you need to be inside it, not standing on the outside. Said the actress to the bishop!
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Mar 19, 2019 16:35:22 GMT
I'm unsurprised that the Brexit mentality also lends itself to conspiracy theories.
Look, Brexit is the ultimate scam, like a particularly bad case of PPI, mis-sold to the voting public by a bunch of self-interested ideologues who promised that there were pots of gold at the end of the Brexit rainbow.
That's what I really despise about it.
As I've said before, if it was a good idea, I'd back it. I can see the flaws of the EU just as well as anyone. But from the get-go, this was never going to work anywhere like the way the Brexiteers suggested. Everything the EU has done in response was predictable and predicted. People shut their eyes to that. So I can never back an idea that is manifestly very bad.
In addition, whilst I can have a grudging respect for those who have always been wedded to Brexit and continue to be so for ideological reasons, I'm afraid I have no respect whatsoever for the increasingly common and intellectually feeble approach which many MPs and voters are taking which goes "I voted for Remain and think Brexit's bad, but we must respect that one narrow vote and just get on with it".
That's an insane position to adopt. And it speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy.
And it's particularly insane because Mrs May's deal is so awful:
(a) it's not really Brexit - it's basically a bad facsimile of EU membership minus the benefits; and
(b) it gives up far more of our sovereignty that it recovers.
That's why the ERG quite rightly hates it, notwithstanding the Irish back-stop.
And yet we voters whinge that our MPs are not simply rubber-stamping it whilst simultaneously objecting to any suggestion that we might be ignorant as to what is really on offer.
I despair. I really do.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 19, 2019 16:50:49 GMT
I think we should allow it to go through but hold the staunch Brexiteers to account so that if, say, my general level of income falls by 10%, i.e. contrary to the 'pots of gold' BoJo, et al promised us, then I can go to BoJo, Rees-Mogg, Leasdsom, etc and they will furnish me with real cash money to the value that I'm now worse off.
After all, they said it would be great.
If its true about the 2nd job actions of some of the Brexteers it gives away what they think of it, the financial advisors among them have been advising clients to divest UK investments in case it goes wrong. That doesn't seem like they have 100% confidence in their great idea.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Mar 19, 2019 17:10:48 GMT
I have just switched off from politics. I can't influence it and whatever the idiots decide I will have to put up with the consequences because I can't remove myself from the impact. Whatever the outcome I will have to deal with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 19:02:19 GMT
"And it's particularly insane because Mrs May's deal is so awful:
(a) it's not really Brexit - it's basically a bad facsimile of EU membership minus the benefits; and
(b) it gives up far more of our sovereignty that it recovers.
That's why the ERG quite rightly hates it, notwithstanding the Irish back-stop".
"After all, they said it would be great.
If its true about the 2nd job actions of some of the Brexteers it gives away what they think of it, the financial advisors among them have been advising clients to divest UK investments in case it goes wrong. That doesn't seem like they have 100% confidence in their great idea".
I never expected "Pots of gold", nor anything like it but I do want shot of the eu march to a federal state of europe, I do not trust them The waste is appalling and they have been driven by two nations that in particular have benefited from the euro and just how long is it going to take for Greece to get over the eu "Generosity" in forcing it to take millions of euro's it did not want in loans? The exit was completely mismanaged from word one and frankly it is still going downhill.
Brexit no longer exists and whatever anyone wants, this deal is as has been stated, membership by any other name and it stinks just as bad. just who is left us to vote for in the next GE? Anyone that is not tarnished by this either as an individual or party?
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Mar 19, 2019 19:02:48 GMT
I have just switched off from politics. I can't influence it and whatever the idiots decide I will have to put up with the consequences because I can't remove myself from the impact. Whatever the outcome I will have to deal with it. You and many others it seems.
But I can't switch off from it. I see it as too important to permit myself that luxury.
Can I influence it all on my own? No.
But I can and have donated money to various anti-Brexit organisations, signed anti-Brexit petitions, marched down the street, stood at the tube station and handed out leaflets. I am not prone to this sort of thing in normal circumstances.
And if everybody who shared my belief that Brexit is insane did the same, we might just get somewhere. I lose nothing by trying and I refuse to be apathetic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 19:05:16 GMT
And if we all did that we would all be on different sides of the street, then there would be riots. Just because you did not vote for it does not mean Brexit is not a good idea. The execution as always has been by self interested maggots.
|
|
|
Post by Boxer6 on Mar 19, 2019 19:07:56 GMT
I have just switched off from politics. I can't influence it and whatever the idiots decide I will have to put up with the consequences because I can't remove myself from the impact. Whatever the outcome I will have to deal with it. Ditto.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Mar 19, 2019 19:11:45 GMT
I never expected "Pots of gold", nor anything like it but I do want shot of the eu march to a federal state of europe, But the answer to that is Bob's one. You can only influence and veto the direction of travel from the inside. Outside we're just a lone voice shouting into the wind.
Brexiteers fondly imagine that Brexit will result in the UK being insulated from future EU upheavals. But this is badly mistaken. If nothing else, simple geography and economics will always dictate that the UK will never be able to escape the effects of goings-on in Europe. If it all to hell in a handcart on the continent, all the trade deals with New Zealand and Zimbabwe in the world will not save us from the economic and geopolitical consequences.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Mar 19, 2019 19:24:21 GMT
Just because you did not vote for it does not mean Brexit is not a good idea. I didn't vote for it because in my considered view it wasn't a good idea and nothing has happened since then which has caused me to change that considered view.
I don't have an ideological interest in this. I simply see a serious risk/reward deficit - none of the supposed benefits of Brexit is worth, in my view, the very considerable cost.
And I worry that the riots will actually come when those who voted for it realise that Brexit hasn't solved all their day-to-day problems in the way they hoped and in fact has made things worse.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Mar 19, 2019 20:11:56 GMT
I didn't vote for it because in my considered view it wasn't a good idea and nothing has happened since then which has caused me to change that considered view.
I don't have an ideological interest in this. I simply see a serious risk/reward deficit - none of the supposed benefits of Brexit is worth, in my view, the very considerable cost.
And I worry that the riots will actually come when those who voted for it realise that Brexit hasn't solved all their day-to-day problems in the way they hoped and in fact has made things worse.
That I wholeheartedly agree with!
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 20, 2019 9:31:24 GMT
I listened to Ian Duncan Smith getting interviewed on R4 this morning and was interested on his spin on some of this.
He kept referring to the Tory Party as if that was the most important part of all this while clearly forgetting that nearly 70% of the voting public didn't tick the Conservative box.
He also touched on the increasing disinterest of the voting public but in his mind that's primarily because we're dismayed about politicians inability to sort Brexit out whereas I think it's a general malaise that really started with the MPs expenses scandal and the clear indication that a lot of them simply see being an MP as a path to greater wealth (a lot of them are already wealthy pre-politics).
He also kept coming back to delivering Brexit being a part of the Tory manifesto in the 2017 general election and thus it had to be followed through as promised. Sadly the interviewer failed to ask about all the manifesto promises made by every party for the last 100s of years that have been quietly dropped. Just because he wants Brexit doesn't mean they have to stand by it.
Finally, as a Brexiter he had the chance to vote for the deal (however bad) and chose not to. Now he wants Brexit by the 29th March no matter what. I have the strong impression that he, and many of the others in his position, were always just going to keep saying 'NO' in the hope of a No Deal.
That's not what the leavers voted for. I can guarantee that most people voted - either way - in the expectation of at least maintaining their current level of income and wealth. The indications are that a no deal won't allow that, but he doesn't care.!!
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Mar 20, 2019 10:08:08 GMT
Surely those that voted to leave, voted hard Brexit did they not? You can't have voted leave and not think it would have an impact on your wallet.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Mar 20, 2019 10:08:21 GMT
" I voted for Remain and think Brexit's bad, but we must respect that one narrow vote and just get on with it". That's an insane position to adopt. And it speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy. I'm not sure I understand you. We've had 10 previous referendums in the UK and implemented the result of every one. Are you now saying we ignore the result of the 11th, or re-run it? (in which case the Scots would be entitled to demand a re-run of the Scottish Independence Referendum). Do we go down the road of some people deciding a democratic vote result is not in the best interests of the country so we annul it? People say you misunderstand democracy if you don't admit that we get the chance to change our minds and have a re-vote every 5 years so changing the Brexit result is not anti-democratic. If the Labour Party is elected (by a minority of the electorate) does someone decide that it would be disastrous for the country (it will be), the electorate has been lied to (they will have been), and that a significant part of the electorate who either didn't vote or, once they saw the Government elect's real policies, they'd want a re-vote, do we implement that? In the history of this country I've never heard of the democratic will of the people being cancelled before it has even been implemented but I'm no student of history so someone may put me right on that. What happens if we get a Trump-like character occupying No.10 and decides that he doesn't like the election results and thinks for the good of the country he won't relinquish power? If you're saying the electorate was lied to and now they know better a significant proportion would vote differently, how would a 55% majority in favour of Remain help in any way? You could equally argue we were lied to when we voted to Remain in the EEC in 1975 so do we go back and re-visit that result? Mixing referendums with Parliamentary democracy has opened a Pandora's Box and I'm not sure how we close it. If I was the EU I wouldn't grant May's request for an extension to Article 50 as it would suggest they don't think their hand is as strong as they have made out. If they do agree, then they've blinked, and we may just have a chance.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 20, 2019 10:31:21 GMT
Surely those that voted to leave, voted hard Brexit did they not? You can't have voted leave and not think it would have an impact on your wallet. That seems to be the standpoint of the hard Brexiteers but I think a lot of people probably voted leave to get away from Europe and/or to limit immigration. If you'd asked them how they thought it would impact on their wallet then I think a very large proportion would've said either no impact or improvement. After all there was the £350M a week boost for the NHS but I bet a lot of people thought that would be split a variety of ways that might involve lower taxes, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Mar 20, 2019 10:58:29 GMT
Has the Government not given an extra £385M a week to the NHS or did I misread that?
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Mar 20, 2019 11:23:31 GMT
Has the Government not given an extra £385M a week to the NHS or did I misread that? Yes but it managed to do that irrespective of Brexit.
This morning the FT reports on the latest independent analysis by E&Y which estimates the transfer of financial assets out of the UK at £1 trillion irrespective of what happens now because banks and investors are being forced to finalise their contingency plans now given there is no clear solution with 9 days to go. For example Barclays alone has just been given UK court approval to shift £190bn of assets to Ireland to hedge against "no deal Brexit".
E&Y also conservatively estimate the annual tax hit just from lost employment taxes due to relocated jobs at £600m but potentially much higher.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Mar 20, 2019 11:29:59 GMT
" I voted for Remain and think Brexit's bad, but we must respect that one narrow vote and just get on with it". That's an insane position to adopt. And it speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy. I'm not sure I understand you. We've had 10 previous referendums in the UK and implemented the result of every one. Are you now saying we ignore the result of the 11th, or re-run it? (in which case the Scots would be entitled to demand a re-run of the Scottish Independence Referendum). Do we go down the road of some people deciding a democratic vote result is not in the best interests of the country so we annul it? People say you misunderstand democracy if you don't admit that we get the chance to change our minds and have a re-vote every 5 years so changing the Brexit result is not anti-democratic. If the Labour Party is elected (by a minority of the electorate) does someone decide that it would be disastrous for the country (it will be), the electorate has been lied to (they will have been), and that a significant part of the electorate who either didn't vote or, once they saw the Government elect's real policies, they'd want a re-vote, do we implement that? In the history of this country I've never heard of the democratic will of the people being cancelled before it has even been implemented but I'm no student of history so someone may put me right on that. What happens if we get a Trump-like character occupying No.10 and decides that he doesn't like the election results and thinks for the good of the country he won't relinquish power? If you're saying the electorate was lied to and now they know better a significant proportion would vote differently, how would a 55% majority in favour of Remain help in any way? You could equally argue we were lied to when we voted to Remain in the EEC in 1975 so do we go back and re-visit that result? Mixing referendums with Parliamentary democracy has opened a Pandora's Box and I'm not sure how we close it. If I was the EU I wouldn't grant May's request for an extension to Article 50 as it would suggest they don't think their hand is as strong as they have made out. If they do agree, then they've blinked, and we may just have a chance. It was an advisory referendum, not a binding one, just like the Scottish one. That's just one reason why it's perfectly possible to re-run it. It's nothing more than a snapshot of public opinion at a point in time. It is not the same as an election.
It was Mrs May's and Mr Corbyn's choice to treat it as a gospel. In her case for (a) party political reasons and (b) her unfinished business in limiting immigration from her time in the Home Office (nasty place full of nasty people), and in his case because he almost certainly voted for Brexit and wants to see it happen.
No one has seriously suggested that the Scots are not permitted another referendum on independence in Scotland if a majority wants to hold one.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Mar 20, 2019 11:40:02 GMT
I'm not sure I understand you. We've had 10 previous referendums in the UK and implemented the result of every one. Are you now saying we ignore the result of the 11th, or re-run it? (in which case the Scots would be entitled to demand a re-run of the Scottish Independence Referendum). Do we go down the road of some people deciding a democratic vote result is not in the best interests of the country so we annul it? People say you misunderstand democracy if you don't admit that we get the chance to change our minds and have a re-vote every 5 years so changing the Brexit result is not anti-democratic. If the Labour Party is elected (by a minority of the electorate) does someone decide that it would be disastrous for the country (it will be), the electorate has been lied to (they will have been), and that a significant part of the electorate who either didn't vote or, once they saw the Government elect's real policies, they'd want a re-vote, do we implement that? In the history of this country I've never heard of the democratic will of the people being cancelled before it has even been implemented but I'm no student of history so someone may put me right on that. What happens if we get a Trump-like character occupying No.10 and decides that he doesn't like the election results and thinks for the good of the country he won't relinquish power? If you're saying the electorate was lied to and now they know better a significant proportion would vote differently, how would a 55% majority in favour of Remain help in any way? You could equally argue we were lied to when we voted to Remain in the EEC in 1975 so do we go back and re-visit that result? Mixing referendums with Parliamentary democracy has opened a Pandora's Box and I'm not sure how we close it. If I was the EU I wouldn't grant May's request for an extension to Article 50 as it would suggest they don't think their hand is as strong as they have made out. If they do agree, then they've blinked, and we may just have a chance. It was an advisory referendum, not a binding one, just like the Scottish one. That's just one reason why it's perfectly possible to re-run it. It's nothing more than a snapshot of public opinion at a point in time. It is not the same as an election.
It was Mrs May's and Mr Corbyn's choice to treat it as a gospel. In her case for (a) party political reasons and (b) her unfinished business in limiting immigration from her time in the Home Office (nasty place full of nasty people), and in his case because he almost certainly voted for Brexit and wants to see it happen.
No one has seriously suggested that the Scots are not permitted another referendum on independence in Scotland if a majority wants to hold one.
Oh come on, I can't believe you're being that naive. "We're going to give the British/Scots a one in a generation say on the EU/Scots Independence but we're not necessarily going to abide by it". When did they say that? How would that have worked? Can you imagine if another Scottish referendum produced a yes result and the Tories went; "yeah thanks for that but we're just going to ignore it". Try and see the bigger picture. I didn't like the result as much as you but at least I'm trying to come to terms with realities as opposed to fanciful notions and what could have been.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Mar 20, 2019 12:11:11 GMT
I'm not being naïve. The realities are that persisting down this road is bad for the country and bad for most of the people who voted to leave. At what point do we do the adult thing and face up to those realities?
The only reason people don't want a second referendum is because they liked the result of the first and don't fancy their chances of repeating that success a second time now that the real consequences have come to light.
Let's see if the country really wants the sort of Brexit that is achievable rather than the sort of Brexit that exists only in dreamland. If it does, so be it. If not, so much the better for us all.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 20, 2019 12:24:43 GMT
The only reason people don't want a second referendum is because they liked the result of the first and don't fancy their chances of repeating that success a second time now that the real consequences have come to light. I think if the same question were asked again leave would win by a bigger margin. There's quite a lot of unsubstantiated claims about why people voted to leave, they're readily assumed to be racists and xenophobes taken in by propaganda. I think the problem is that until you understand why people voted for change then no real resolution can be reached.
|
|
|
Post by alf on Mar 20, 2019 13:17:50 GMT
I find the whole thing hugely depressing and divisive. It is upsetting that UK politics was already heading down a road of division and emnity (as in the US), not helped by social media and the whole "fake news" arena. The last few GE's, and the Scottish referendum, were already on dangerous ground and the Brexit vote has made it far worse.
I don't like the deal being called "May's deal". Its the deal that the EU member states offered us in a 26 vs 1 "negotiation". It would have been very similar whoever was attempting to negotiate it on our side. The problem is, it makes no logical sense to leave and yet retain close trading links with the EU (which in my opinion means it makes no sense to leave full stop, but I recognise that that opinion lost the referendum). And now we have a situation where numerous different political groups have their own vision of what Brexit should be, and I can't see any single one of these visions winning a majority in either parliament, or with the public.
Which means that logically you could say that a second referendum is now valid, because everyone that cares about it at all is now much better informed about the options, and also is aware of just how difficult this all is. However I have major concerns about a second referendum as well. When I thought a "Brexit lite" would just be a done deal without too much trouble I was minded to just accept that "my" side lost the vote and I'm still worried people will see it as "the powers that be" asking for a second vote because the first one was "wrong".
But, one depressing reality as you get older, is that a lot of people are not logical open-minded thinkers making decisions from a basis of fact. We live in a world now where it is all too easy to attack established facts, and just make a load of noise on ideological grounds, or gut feel, or intolerance, or whatever - and portray your views as being equally valid as the truth.
I personally tend to vote based on the short to medium term financial impact, in the belief that a strong economy and free trade have a knock-on effect on society as a whole, that brings about greater equality, and brings more people out of poverty, than a more left wing approach of direct action to tax business and hand out more money to those in need (which may seem logical, but damages the overall economy too much to be effective). That's why I voted remain, and why I vote Conservative. I fully appreciate that this is a limited view and that actually, a hard Brexit may be a better for the UK in the long run, freeing us from attempting to synchronise trade deals among the very different needs of the very different countries that make up the EU. I do think that it would be a generation before we saw any real benefits of hard Brexit, and they may very well never materialise, and personally I do not believe many people voted "leave" believing it would hurt them financially. I think it was a gut feeling based on a mix of patriotism, anti-EU feeling, and anti-immigration sentiment on one hand, and a lot of "screw you London/the Tories/The Rich/The Establishment" on the other. So I am more torn than some - I can see the possible long term benefits, but I do feel the reasons many people voted leave were not overly positive.
It's turned into a spectacular clusterf*** now though hasn't it - and has turned many decent folk off of politics. The combination of a relatively weak Conservative party ripping itself to shreds over Europe at a time when the opposition is such a negative bunch of total idiots, professional complainers with no economic sense whatsoever, and some deeply nasty traits among then (terrorist symathy, racism as long as it's the "right" way around, using social media to hound and threaten people, chips on shoulders about "the rich" and the US, sympathy towards people like Putin anc Chavez, etc) is a very bad one for our country, sadly.
Selfishly perhaps, I'd like to see a second referendum brought about by a Labour led coalition, that stops Brexit but destroys the current Labour leadership in fairly quick order and brings about more centrist, pro-business, people at the top of the two main parties as the best outcome.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Mar 20, 2019 13:52:50 GMT
I never wanted Brexit and still don't want it. However a second referendum would absolutely allow the SNP to demand a second Scottish referendum and I am dead against that too. If coming out of the EU means the SNP are denied a second referendum then that is a price I am not happy about but it is one I am prepared to pay. If you think the UK will be poorer out of Europe, it doesn't begin to come close to how poor Scotland could be out of the UK regardless of the rhetoric of those who want it: try raising extra taxes when a large slice of the 10% of people who pay 60% of the income tax decide to move south.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Mar 20, 2019 15:55:33 GMT
The only reason people don't want a second referendum is because they liked the result of the first and don't fancy their chances of repeating that success a second time now that the real consequences have come to light. I think if the same question were asked again leave would win by a bigger margin. There's quite a lot of unsubstantiated claims about why people voted to leave, they're readily assumed to be racists and xenophobes taken in by propaganda. I think the problem is that until you understand why people voted for change then no real resolution can be reached.
I have no problem with that outcome. It would put the point to bed.
If a majority of those who bother to vote still wants to leave at this point, then so be it. At least it will be a better-informed decision this time, and one where voters have been asked what sort of Brexit they want. Hard or not.
After all it was no less a Brexiteer than Jacob Rees-Mogg who, during a parliamentary debate in 2011, said: “We could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed.”
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Mar 20, 2019 16:03:32 GMT
I didn't vote for it because in my considered view it wasn't a good idea and nothing has happened since then which has caused me to change that considered view.
I don't have an ideological interest in this. I simply see a serious risk/reward deficit - none of the supposed benefits of Brexit is worth, in my view, the very considerable cost.
And I worry that the riots will actually come when those who voted for it realise that Brexit hasn't solved all their day-to-day problems in the way they hoped and in fact has made things worse.
That I wholeheartedly agree with! The other point about Brexit is that it is an extraordinarily complacent high stakes gamble.
If the Brexiteers are right about Brexit and I'm wrong, then hurrah. No harm done. I will happily eat every ounce of humble pie out of sheer relief.
But if the Brexiteers are wrong and I'm right, then we're really screwed.
It bothers me hugely that no Brexiteer ever seems to stop to consider what happens if they are wrong. There are no meaningful consequences to me being wrong here. There are potentially catastrophic consequences to the Brexiteers being wrong here.
That inherent imbalance ought to worry all of us.
|
|