That’s all utter bollocks though. Those issuing genuine warnings represent the cream of UK trade, diplomatc, industry and civil service skills, experience and knowledge. Not some random website packed with ethno-nationalist lies and dogshit. There is no such thing as managed WTO, nor any WTO option that works.
draxen
4188
I don’t know man. It’s really difficult to cut through the rhetoric. I think the truth lies (as often is the case) somewhere in the middle.
Aceris
4189
An appeal to authority, when those same authorities made a flat out wrong prediction on this very subject 3 years ago, is valueless. And you know it.
I think as you do that they are certainly more right now than they were before, but you have to explain why you think that. You can’t just say “they’re the experts”. It makes you look lazy and/or stupid.
The same authorities that predicted Brexit would be massively damaging and too complicated to implement were wrong?
Yeah, this thread sure does demonstrate an easy, doable, non contentious Brexit.
At the end of the day millions of racist, ethno-nationalist vermin are going to kill tens/hundreds of thousands of people and make millions more suffer to get what they want.
Anything other than fighting these evil scum is appeasement and unforgivable. Those that want all of this just to get the trains to run on time deserve to be pilloried just the same as the millions who voted to secure the future for white children.
I think there’s an entire treatise on moral philosophy waiting to be written about Theresa May and her approach to what is a thorny moral and ethical problem. If indeed she has arrived at the view that a no-deal Brexit is superior to revoking Article 50, I can’t grasp the convincing moral argument that gets her there.
She basically has a choice between two alternatives:
- Plunging the country into political and economic chaos because a minority of eligible voters three years ago indicated a preference for an ill-defined outcome that has proven to be nonexistent, or
- Plunging the country into only political (not economic) chaos by refusing to do the former and instead reverting to the status quo ante.
In either case she is doomed and will be reviled by half the people of her country. But in the former case she’ll take the ship down with her, while in the latter she’ll arguably save it.
Edit: First alternative edited for better accuracy.
draxen
4194
I’m not sure about that. I have an increasing amount of sympathy for May. She’s completely trapped by the two opposing factions. I certainly wouldn’t want the job of navigating a path between them. I think she’s a lightning rod for criticism.
Parsing what Scott wrote, I think he’s saying there is no win for her, she’s done either way. But she has the choice to possibly save the economic future of her country as she falls on her own sword. And as a outsider looking in, I agree with him. There is no appeasing either side right now, but there is also the notion of screwing your country over just because a decision can’t be reached.
One can have sympathy for her situation while still decrying the moral choices she makes as a result of it.
Yes, this is what I meant. It seems clear to me, but of course I don’t know everything she knows, or thinks she knows.
I’m with the idea that the politicians, who are doomed regardless, could save their future, historical reputations by revoking art 50. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Is that even a possibility? I don’t know how the revocation of an article works there. Does one person have the power to do that?
Aceris
4200
Only at the cost of destroying the political future of her country.
She’s doing that in either case. Half the electorate will feel disenfranchised by either outcome, and the major parties will fracture, and the government will fall, no matter which option she chooses. But, arguably, fewer people will die and/or be economically ruined if she makes the right choice.
Parliament would have to vote to do it. Maybe they won’t vote for that, but she ought at least give them the choice.
Aceris
4203
I think it’s pretty clear parliament could have that choice if they wanted.
Instead they want to vote on crazy automatically extending transition periods because they know many MPs care more about not being blamed than about preventing a crisis. Some of them probably actively want a crisis for political advantage.
This really makes the case that there will be no deal.
I imagine UK is trapped between the Tory Brexiteers who hope for No Deal with the idea that it will be a minor bump on the road to much greater prosperity-- or at worst, bracing hardship, and a faction of Labor which hopes for No Deal with the idea that it will be such a huge disaster it’s a sure path back to power. Between them all sensible paths are blocked.
There’s a very minimal part of Labour that has blocked any of the Brexit proposals other than no deal and May’s deal — two dozen at most — and it’s dwarfed by Tories, and for that matter the minor parties. In fact, the vast majority of votes for all of the other proposals came from Labour.
Looks like the Brexiters aren’t waiting for no deal medicine shortages to kill people.
Luckily, they are as fucking thick as the rest of their co-voters
