Politics is filled today with the question - what type of Brexit should we go for ? It is a most disingenuous and undemocratic question - that is actually sickening in its cynicism.
The question really is what did people vote for in the referendum. They voted to leave the EU in order to get back full control of our laws, money and borders.
What they certainly didn't vote for in the democratically held referendum was to nominally leave and not to achieve full control of our laws, money and borders - otherwise why leave at all? What would be the point? What would be the point of in effect half leaving - ie staying in the single market - or very close to it - if the price is to give up full or even partial control of our laws, money and borders and be unable to do trade deals with global countries on our own terms. That would be the worst of all worlds - half in - half out. THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS VOTED FOR - LEAVE MEANS LEAVE.
The emergence of arguments for "soft" Brexit or "grey" Brexit is a recipe for disaster for this country. As I have said the worst of all worlds - no longer at the EU voting table but hamstrung by it. It is also and primarily a rear guard tactic of "remainers" who wilfully and disingenuously will not accept the democratic decision of the people who voted for hard Brexit in majority, regardless of any trade loss or trading disadvantage with the EU - which they understood.
Theresa May has to stick with her stance based on her correct, honourable and democratic interpretation of the referendum result and not be bullied into watering it down by the forces who want to achieve remain in the EU or whose priority is only EU single market access achieved through tactics best described as via the undemocratic backdoor and by using weasel words. (like they respect the referendum result!)
The question really is what did people vote for in the referendum. They voted to leave the EU in order to get back full control of our laws, money and borders.
What they certainly didn't vote for in the democratically held referendum was to nominally leave and not to achieve full control of our laws, money and borders - otherwise why leave at all? What would be the point? What would be the point of in effect half leaving - ie staying in the single market - or very close to it - if the price is to give up full or even partial control of our laws, money and borders and be unable to do trade deals with global countries on our own terms. That would be the worst of all worlds - half in - half out. THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS VOTED FOR - LEAVE MEANS LEAVE.
The emergence of arguments for "soft" Brexit or "grey" Brexit is a recipe for disaster for this country. As I have said the worst of all worlds - no longer at the EU voting table but hamstrung by it. It is also and primarily a rear guard tactic of "remainers" who wilfully and disingenuously will not accept the democratic decision of the people who voted for hard Brexit in majority, regardless of any trade loss or trading disadvantage with the EU - which they understood.
Theresa May has to stick with her stance based on her correct, honourable and democratic interpretation of the referendum result and not be bullied into watering it down by the forces who want to achieve remain in the EU or whose priority is only EU single market access achieved through tactics best described as via the undemocratic backdoor and by using weasel words. (like they respect the referendum result!)
No comments:
Post a Comment