My view has always been that (a) too many big lies were told by pro-"Leave the EU" advocates and that (b) too large a proportion of the pro-"Leave the EU" advocates were shady grifters sure that they would lose but who were maneuvering for political advantage—they wanted to denounce the Establishment for failing to give everybody a pet unicorn, rather than to actually take power and run a unicorn-breeding stable. My view has been that the British press committed grave malpractice in hiding (a) and (b) from the electorate. My view has been that the best way to deal with this shambles is (c) for the press to come clean and (d) hold an informed revote—and that politicians opposed to a revote given the illegitimacy of the "Leave" mandate are shady grifters, etc. The argument against a revote is that it will split the country. But the country is split already. Better to have a split more-prosperous country with a government with a genuine mandate for its policies than a split less-prosperous country with a government with a fake mandate. Martion Wolf agrees with me: Martin Wolf: The Risks of a Second Brexit Referendum Must Now Be Run: "Another vote will be divisive —but what is happening is already splitting the country.... I can say what should happen. The answer is a second referendum.... I do not take that view with enthusiasm...
...But the unreasonable behaviour of Brexiters has left no other course. Their determination to pursue the catastrophic option of a “ no-deal” Brexit, rather than accept compromise, leaves no alternative to asking voters to vote again. I have never wavered in my view that Brexit is a disastrous course. The UK would be rendered impoverished and irrelevant, relative to what it would be as an influential member of the EU. The propositions of Brexiters about the golden future awaiting “global Britain” are fantasies. I have also never wavered in the view that referendums are a dangerous way to resolve issues, particularly when one of the options—Leave, in this case—was so undefined. It allowed Leavers to promulgate illusions and so created insuperable problems in defining the “will of the people”....
Responsibility... rest[s] with the recalcitrance of the Brexiter fanatics. If they will not compromise, why should others? If they are determined to act as if a slight victory in the referendum gives them the right to drive the country over a cliff, then Remainers have the right to ask parliament to consult the people again. Is this, we should now ask, what they really want? I recognise the risks of another referendum. It will be very divisive. But what is happening is already divisive.... There is no such thing in a liberal democracy as a vote that cannot be reversed, once time has passed and circumstances have changed. Time has passed. We now know what the withdrawal deal looks like. A second referendum is also needed to force clarity on what no deal might mean: it would require many deals—over Ireland, for example. We must open the no-deal black box....
The big point... is that the fate of the country cannot be left in the hands of a prime minister prepared to put the unity of her party above the fate of the country and so prefer the huge risks of no deal to another referendum. Nor can the fanatical Brexiters, a minority in parliament, be allowed to dictate what Leave means. They did not campaign for such a no-deal Brexit, with all the risks it would create. On the contrary, they suggested the UK could have its cake and eat it: and so enjoy the benefits of leaving and remaining.... A second vote would allow the country to consider the real choices, not the choice between reality and fantasy made in June 2016. The referendum would be divisive. The people might still choose a no-deal Brexit. So be it. But this would at least be the product of a deliberate choice. Let us have a second vote.
#noted #orangehairedbaboons #globalization #brexit
