Exercising the will of the people in the form of Brexit was always bound to cause uncertainty and short term delay in investment until the eventual agreement was known. What cannot be taken as fact is the UK will be poorer in 3, 5 or 10 years time. If parliament does not continue to support the government in carrying out the direction preferred by the electorate it will create a constitutional crisis.
It wasn't the will of the people - you're sounding too much like Robespierre here. It was the will of about 27% of them. This being in a referendum in a country which is not used to referendums which produced a result which was not legally binding - there would have been nothing unconstitutional in ignoring it. It is also the British Parliament which is sovereign in the UK (isn't this what you said Brexit was all about)
The decision to hold a referendum to decide the UK's future in the EU was sanctioned by an overwhelming number of MPs in parliament. Everybody knew the outcome would be judged by a simply majority of those that bothered to vote. It was also made clear by the UK Prime Minister that as far as the government was concerned the result was binding. Since the result parliament has consistently voted to support the government's plan to leave on the best terms possible.
I appreciate your point but think the Tory party have no chance of solving almost anything - I have no faith in them. Their divisive split means they can only hold a Chamberlain style fudge. The Tories will not voluntarily hold an election before 2022.
The Tories may be split but less of a chasm that currently exists in the Labour Party. There will not an election before 2022, the Tories have a remarkable ability to unite when needed.
Unfortunately I think you are correct on all of this. Parliament does feel that it would be wrong to overturn the referendum result. Personally though I wish they would look at another principle - which is that they must ultimately do what is right for the UK - and if that meant overturning the referendum result because they believed it would damage the country then they would have a duty to do what they are elected to do - to represent their constituents not to be dictated to by them.
I am not sure on that SH. The split in the Tories is pretty fundamental on the EU - never the twain shall meet. However Tories usually see the bigger picture that is holding on to power and I think they will continue in that vein. I am not sure Labour are very split now. They are backing JC whatever they privately think of him
On the basis of a very difficult negotiation scenario I cannot see how any view on the UK's long term wellbeing can be extrapolated. Without any alarmingly negative certainty the government must crack on with the result of the referendum in my view. The EU were always gong to make the negotiations as difficult as possible to avoid other EU members from trying the same.
The fundamental split in the Labour Party will not really surface, apart from local issues, until the preparations for the next elections start. Many moderate Labour MP's are extremely worried about facing deselection by Momentum led local activists. Recent changes to the NEC will only strengthen the far left's grip on the party.
There is certainly a large majority of MPs who do not see the gains, if any, of leaving the EU. They could roughly be described as moderates in that they are not from the hard right or left. That is where we need a new coalition to come from, a group or party that will work for the people in an open way. The old parties were rejected here and a new one taking people from moderate left and right emerged successfully. It almost happened in the UK in the 1980s when the SDP broke away from Labour which was in similar turmoil to the Tories, and it did get a fair amount of support from members of all existing parties. It is a far more difficult process in the UK to form such a new alliance because of the old tribal loyalties, but a bad result from Brexit could cause the final breakup of the current system.
Since you predicted the demise of the UK's two party domination they have only got much stronger. The only party that did not support Brexit, The Lib Dems, was shunned by the voters at the last election. Both of the main parties have consistently supported Brexit through the parliamentary stages. Corbyn stated last weekend that Labour will not support a second referendum. The majority of MP's will, as usual, respect the referendum result and will ensure they will not be accused of being anti democratic. Brexit will happen and the two main political parties will continue to dominate for the foreseeable future.
I agree with you. However I think for now Corbyn has won and the next election will see Labour fight on his agenda. I doubt we will see much opposition. If they get beaten badly then perhaps splits will re-open. I think that most economists agree that replacing the trade advantages of the EU will not leave the UK better off. There are few serious arguments against that - but the whole point is that brexit for many was about much more than the economy. You are correct of course that forecast are notoriously difficult and unreliable - however when all point in the same general direction it is fair to assume they have some credibility. You are right that the government must "crack on" and try to achieve the best it can and also that the EU were always going to do what was in their interests.
You are right - but the subsequent demise of the SDP has if anything put others off following that course - otherwise Labout might have done it again two years ago. In the last election the old two party split re-asserted itself. A bad brexit result - will be too late.
For quite some time it did look like the UK was fragmenting into more parties - time will show whether that reversal in 2017 was just a short term reversal. The LibDem shafting by the Tories in 2010-2015 has been very effective since. Not helped by an idiot leader. You are correct that Tory and Labour have supported brexit - however that is more through a sense of loyalty to the referendum and "democracy" than because they were in favour. I cannot think why Corbyn is so wedded and glued to pursuing brexit - unless he genuinely does prefer it. It would take a brave man to disagree with your last sentence.
It is much easier to quantify potential immediate losses, what is difficult is to fully understand potential trade gains with non EU countries whilst hopefully having reasonable access to the EU market. Even Farage accepted some reduction in UK growth is worth having for more domestic control over laws, immigration etc. I would have thought that view was quite widespread.
The demise of the Lib Dems started in 2015, their anti Brexit stance failed to help their cause in 2017. They do however deserve enormous credit for their part in rescuing the country after Labour had spent all the money by 2010.
The deficit has declined steadily under Tory control from a record height under Labour in 2010. It could have been much quicker between 2010 -2015 had the Lib Dems not stopped the Tories from putting proper cost control in place as the Republic of Ireland imposed. I suppose you mean the national debt not deficit.
Yes. It is time to tackle this myth - Labour is better for the economy. Measured on GDP Britain prospers more, generally, under Labour than the Tories - apart from the 2 year financial crisis. This is based on statistics for the last 40 years. In terms of borrowing - Labour has borrowed less, and repaid more than the Tories - again measured on an average of the last 40 years. Unemployment - on average 2% higher for Tory years in office. Industrial actions - More days have been lost under Tory governments than under Labour. Where do we get the idea from that the Tories are better with the economy ?
