expressman33 wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:57 pm
pabenny wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:41 pm
The Leave campaign made all sorts of claims and promises which have not been borne out in practice - such as the ease of negotiating a withdrawal agreement and of trade agreements with other countries.
The apocalyptic claims of the Remain side have been slower than expected but have come to pass - marked fall in the value of GBP, loss of inward investment, loss of jobs.
Since we're not getting what the Leavers promised and we are getting what the Remainers warned of, it's reasonable to ask whether the electorate still want what they voted for in 2016.
The problem with that argument is that we haven't left yet ,so no one knows how leaving will affect the UK and probably we wont know for many years
True, but every indication is negative. We don't know how far we will fall or how quickly, but the signs are that we will fall. The possibility that it will take many years (50, if Jacob Rees Mogg is to be believed) until we know is not reassuring. The talk now is of mitigation, not celebrating the sunlit uplands.
Maybe it's the project manager in me, but when I assess risks, the first approach is to avoid the risk, not mitigate it's impact.
Ironically, over the past three years, we seem to have done some of the investigation and due diligence that we should have done before triggering article 50. or indeed, before having the referendum in the first place. Given the wealth of information and scenario modelling now available, and the impasse that has now fatally crippled two governments, a second referendum remains the least bad way forward.