قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ World https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ Politics after the truth is alive and well in Brexit Britain

Politics after the truth is alive and well in Brexit Britain



Brexit is a unique peculiar piece of politics that has made the UK a very peculiar place.

It is no secret that the country is bitterly divided over more than it should be in or outside the EU. For a problem that was once binary (Leave, Remain), there are now countless desired results, none of which we are told, order the important parliamentary majority.

The simplest result would be for May to win on Tuesday. That would mean that the United Kingdom officially leaves the EU on March 29 before starting work on what's coming next. But that "if" is so gigantic, it guarantees its own moon. Even members of the corn inner circle admit privately that they expect her to lose.

If that happens, it becomes a number game. A modest loss could give May confidence to try again. However, a major defeat could kill both her deal and her leadership. And this is where the countless desired results come back to games.

Possible scenarios include: an attempt at (probably condemned) renegotiation with the EU; extension of the Article 50 process (the mechanism by which a Member State leaves the EU) a collapse of the government and the general election; a change of prime minister another EU referendum a scrapping of Brexit completely; and crash out with a no-deal.

These are the other results ̵

1; and their advocates – that are worth placing under a microscope.

The various tribes have consistently hidden behind the principles to avoid approving an option that is * actually * on the table – or creating consensus behind their preference. Worse, they have decided to ignore the real problems that accompany their solutions.

Call it lying, call it intentional misunderstanding, regardless: in the two and a half years ago 51.9% voted Abandoned, few in Britain's political class have characterized.

Let's start with the most common race: those who believe May (or another) should try to get a better deal.

We know that the withdrawal agreement – divorce and transition to full independence – is locked. A European diplomatic source recently told me that this is not a hardball negotiating position from the EU. It has taken 28 countries the best part of two years to reach this agreement. The idea something much better can be moved through before the Brexit deadline is somewhat optimistic.

And what the "better offer" can be, is also disputed. Some MEPs will emulate a softer arrangement in Norway that gives Britain access to the single market; others want a looser trade agreement that is no different from that enjoyed by Canada with the EU. However, both options are considered unacceptable to the camp, and the decisive thing is not anything that concerns Northern Ireland's questions.

Next, the extenders. Opposition Labor's Brexit spokesman, Keir Starmer, said he believes expanding Article 50 now "inevitably". Classic rival movement. Decoded: You have done such a bad job that Brexit is now impossible.

The logic here is that by expanding there is wiggle space to improve the deal. Now we already know that, according to the EU, this is not currently an option. In addition, extension of Article 50 would require the hand of the other 27 Member States, some of whom could veto. Risky does not come close. And who does Starmer think of leading these talks?

Oh yes, the government collapsing and general electoral strategy. Although it is possible that the maize government could fall, a snapshot could be held and a new government – led by either Labor or a new conservative PM – could be formed, it might be too late.

The man best placed to force a trust in the government is Starmer's boss, Jeremy Corbyn. So far, he has refused to call such a vote, and it is now dangerously close to the Brexit deadline.

And even in this election scenario it is not clear Theresa May or her replacement would request to expand Article 50. Then again: risky business for a nation that runs out of way and ideas.

An increasing number of votes now support another referendum. The problem with this is countless, but first and foremost it is that it can be the greatest political risk for everyone.

Wargaming bag-of-a-beer mats indicate that since Brexit has evolved, there would now be a need to be more than the two options that were on the original poll.

For any result considered valid would almost certainly have to draw more votes than the 17.4 million who voted to leave in 2016. An election choice would not give such a result. And if you thought the campaign in 2016 was nasty, try this for size: Political elites are trying to steal your Brexit from you.

Finally, we have the two most extreme ends of this entire mucky business: stop Brexit gang and no-dealers.

Beginning with stop Brexiters, they have largely been ignored because their argument seemed absurd in the face of reality. The UK said leave; Parliament voted to trigger Article 50. Done.

Thereafter, the European Court of Justice ruled that the United Kingdom could unilaterally revoke Article 50. The scraps were cock-a-hoop, but appropriately chose to ignore an important warning: if Britain were to do so, it would also have to remain committed a Member State.

And what about the no-dealers and where do they start? "No deal? Big deal!"

In their eyes, it would be good to switch to the World Trade Organization's terms with the UK's largest trading partner. It can simply beat trading deals around the world more than make up for its losses.

Many words are already dedicated to why it is both financially illiterate and fairly dangerous (the UK Health Secretary believes that a non-agreement would actually endanger the lives of the sick for a variety of reasons). So while commercial transactions may be a defect and the planes may not fall out of the sky, hell can freeze and pigs can fly. Most people would not bet on their life savings on it.

  Jaguar Land Rover slashing 4,500 jobs

But – and this is crucial – a no-deal is now the default setting. The final piece of selective honesty to address is the all-too-familiar trope that simply is not a majority in Parliament for a no-deal.

There is. It was filed on February 1, 2017, when Parliament voted 498 to 114 to trigger Article 50. Without an agreement, it doesn't matter.

The post-truth policy is alive and well in the UK.

But here's the case: in fact, everybody's dealer is that Britain gets a hold pattern, while everyone takes a breath and pulls out what's next. Those who want to give her a bloody nose and hide behind their principles choose to ignore that when Britain is in transition many of their favorite results are back on the table.

And by the way, May itself is not exempt from this. From the day she took over as PM, she has had many kinds of nonsense (remember "no deal is better than a bad deal"?).

Only this week she claimed that Parliament would be allowed to vote on a crucial element of the withdrawal agreement coming into force: backstop in Northern Ireland. But backstop is part of an international treaty, not a bill that the UK Parliament has the power to change.

Time has come for Britain's elected representatives to make a choice on the main problem that the country has faced since the end of World War II.

Begrudge May & # 39; s agreement as they may have, it is at least an opportunity on the table that she and her government have struggled hard to put in place the oldest surviving parliament. If the majority of the house chooses – and it is a choice – to hide behind the principle and ignore the truth, history can judge them cruelly. And true, it would be no less than they deserve.


Source link