Brexit and logistics

Maybe you're right, but in this case wouldn't it have still arguably been better to extend the affair and extract the most possible feathers from the goose with the least amount of hissing vis-a-vis extended contract monies for all of their Eton pals/spouses/colleagues with less tangible chaos next year?

 It all smells horrible though, I agree. Unfortunately, just as with the Polish government and it's recent incredibly anti-liberal abortion policy, the pandemic is often being used as a scapegoat or a distraction for various improperly enacted Governmental plans.

It's both.

There are the behind-the-scenes powers, without whom none of this would ever have been more than a handful of swivel-eyed loons. And there's zero doubt that profit and personal power take priority over any greater good in that category, even amongst those who are not simply external actors in the first place. The white-wash over whether that last category stretches all the way to Putin may or may not return to bite certain quarters in the future, of course. 

Then there are the front-men and the voters who simply believe it...

It's a whole 'nuther question as to whether that's because they have a settled and well-reasoned political position based on fact and experience, because they've been whipped into a froth by the knowing lies of the Sun/Mail/Express/Telegraph, or simply because they're outright xenophobes. There are unquestionably people in all three camps. I leave it to others to determine the proportions. But one thing is for sure... Discount the outright xenophobes, and 2016's vote would not have had a majority.

Was it Aesop who said that a man should be judged by the company he keeps?

Let's not forget Johnson's two articles...

www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnsons-article-backing-britains-future-in-the-eu-a3370296.html

I was/am a "remainer" but the country democratically voted otherwise. We on this side of the fence do need to do a better job of seeming to have accepted that vote. Repeatedly saying "I told you so" has never worked in real life and I can't see how this would be different. All that does is entrench positions and makes people defensive. 

I am willing to admit I don't know many people who did vote for brexit. But the ones I know, did expect things to get worse before they got better. And even if they don't eventually get financially better, they thought it was a price worth paying for Brexit. Yes they have been a little surprised we don't have a trade deal yet but can accept we may not get one. What has surprised them more and slightly worries them is the lingering impact on social cohesion that the vote seems to have caused. 

So I say don't estimate the draw of identity. If this vote is to be "corrected" in the longer term it needs it needs its foundation somehow built on a unifying positive message rather than a negative one of "you brought this on yourself" surely?

I agree that name calling or broad characterisations of "Brexiteers" are counterproductive. So on the other hand is reiterating old tropes like dismissing any negative economic impact as "project fear" instead of debating the specific issue.

I do think it's always good to hold politicians accountable. Pointing out specific promises that are not being maintained or problems that needs to be solved is only fair.

Indeed. Especially since the scenarios we are now facing - hard brexit, no deal etc, were ridiculed during the actual vote as being impossible outcomes. Easiest trade deal in history, remember?

I hope things work out well, but if they don't, its nice to know which xenophobic knuckledraggers to blame.

Personally, I have some sympathy for this point of view when we're talking about each other as normal people in society. Although the endless months of 'get over it' were deeply irritating, insulting etc in the face of the clearly damaging choice it was, it is true that two wrongs don't make a right despite almost everything bad about this project coming to fruition and it being overwhelmingly tempting to rub peoples noses in it.

I also feel that it was primarily the politicians that really pushed this divide. Yes, there were always going to be a few people be asshats about it, but from the very start Theresa May made it about 'the will of the people' , at a stroke disregarding 48% of the vote. Every single step since then from the Government seems to have been either incidentally or purposefully designed to be incendiary and divisive.

We, 'the people' never really had any chance to correct this error. The supposed choice of voting to keep the Conservatives in power against a hard left antisemitic Government promising to 'maybe think about possibly looking at it' wasn't ever really one, was it?  


PS - IFISAcava - genuine question: would May's initial Brexit 'BRINO' deal not count as a soft Brexit compromise in content?  Of course, whether or not it was, she had done so much to ensure it's unacceptability to everyone that at that point it didn't matter. 

PPS - It's sometimes tempting to think of Theresa May in a kinder light compared to the current incumbents. Whilst I would prefer her in power to BoJo (at least she has a soul) it's these types of discussions which remind me just how badly she did in terms of forcing apart the country at a critical juncture, ultimately allowing the lunatic fringe of her party to take over with her "no deal is better than a good deal" idiocy.