Dr Richard North of the EU Referendum blog, in yesterday's post (HERE) is again starting to look like a nihilist. OK, he's been a staunch advocate of Brexit for a very long time and one must respect his views. But he has always proposed a route out of the EU that minimises the economic damage - he calls it his Flexcit plan. It's a gentle levering of the UK away from Brussels over a period of years involving temporary membership of EFTA and the EEA. I'm not convinced it's feasible or even politically acceptable to most people. The best you can say about it is that at least it's a plan.
Few other individuals in this country understand the complexities surrounding our departure better than Dr North. He has been warning about the calamity of a no deal Brexit almost ever since Theresa May gave her conference speech in October 2016. I give him credit for his work.
Before Christmas he thought "that there was far more support for Mrs May and her deal in the country at large than there was in the frenzied hothouse of Westminster". This came from a very deep well of wishful thinking. Now he doesn't know what will happen but in a Disqus exchange below the post, says:
"However, if we were to be given the choice of either an Article 50 revocation or a no-deal, that is probably the one situation where I would feel compelled to opt for a no-deal. That would be my personal choice, on the basis that rejoining is simply not an option. The schism with the EU is already permanent – I can't see the UK ever again being a functional member of the Union".
This comes in a reply to TroJon who had earlier posted a comment, which started thus:
"Given that TM's deal leaves the UK worse off economically, culturally and socially by comparison with our privileged position within the EU and that a no-deal presages a catastrophe, it shocks me that Richard prefers a no-deal to revoking A50. For anyone less well informed than him I would regard his opinion as irresponsible, rather than merely ideological. And to see a further referendum as even worse than the government revoking A50 is puzzling for one wedded to democratic accountability.
"From his own blog Richard envisages a hit of £100 billion during the first six months post no-deal, followed most likely by long-term disinvestment, disruption to manufacturing and agriculture, and a major loss of jobs. Then we have had Sir Ivan Rogers blow out of the water any notion that "regaining control" is anything other than wishful thinking - a chimera, mirage, fantasy of the thoughtless".
We did not have to wait long for the thunderous reply from the man known to his followers as OGH (Our Good Host):
"It is hardly a matter of preference? We have been confronted by a series of unattractive choices, none of which are actually preferred.
"What I then have to deal with is the amount of superficial thinking, where people such as yourself opt for a course of action without having fully considered the circumstances and the consequences, yet are happy to dribble out meaningless mantras as a substitute for thought.
"As to revoking Article 50, I don't see that as an option for several reasons, not least because it would poison political relationships for a generation. The government has no mandate for this action and it would not solve anything.
"When we consider a referendum, there is the sheer impracticability to think of. How could we possibly organise a free and fair referendum in the time left, or in any amount of time? Given that we would need an Article 50 extension, why do we even think that the EU would grant us one that extended past the Euro-elections.
The rant continues quite a bit further but I won't bore you with the rest, the important insight to me is this idea that steering the nation away from the cataclysmic disaster he has himself been pointing to for years, would "poison political relationships" for a generation and the government "has no mandate" for it. This to me is like the driver of a Charabanc, on an outing to the seaside, realising he has taken a wrong turn and the whole thing is headed over a cliff, but not wanting to stop because it might spoil the passengers' day to be told they won't get on the beach as they expect.
Only someone so irrationally and single-mindedly opposed to the EU for ideological reasons could think that avoiding a no deal catastrophe must be a bad thing.
Laying waste to the car industry and much of the livestock farming business, food and medicine shortages and so on are apparently a price worth paying and won't poison political relationships. It is also, he thinks, something for which the government has a mandate.
He also talks about organising a free and fair referendum. The last one must have slipped his mind if he genuinely thought it was free and fair.
Richard North is not really that far removed from the ultras he despises. The EU is to both them and him, something akin to a North Korean labour camp and escape at any cost in blood and treasure is a bargain. It isn't.
The PM faces a dilemma. No deal or no Brexit. Any politician would in my opinion, make the decision to stop Brexit because to do otherwise would cause irreparable long term damage to the economy and to the livelihoods of thousands of people. No to mention the standing of this country and its place in the world.
No deal is not an option.
He has regularly and consistently forecast the kind of catastrophic event that a no deal exit would unleash.
But with just 83 days to go he thinks the no deal disaster is now the most likely outcome.
However, he comes to this conclusion, it seems to me, only because he cannot bring himself to seriously contemplate the obvious alternative solution, which is to revoke Article 50 and cancel Brexit. In my opinion, this is actually far more likely to happen than leaving without a deal, but Dr North dismisses it out of hand. This is what happens when you become obsessed with desiring a particular outcome.
But with just 83 days to go he thinks the no deal disaster is now the most likely outcome.
However, he comes to this conclusion, it seems to me, only because he cannot bring himself to seriously contemplate the obvious alternative solution, which is to revoke Article 50 and cancel Brexit. In my opinion, this is actually far more likely to happen than leaving without a deal, but Dr North dismisses it out of hand. This is what happens when you become obsessed with desiring a particular outcome.
Before Christmas he thought "that there was far more support for Mrs May and her deal in the country at large than there was in the frenzied hothouse of Westminster". This came from a very deep well of wishful thinking. Now he doesn't know what will happen but in a Disqus exchange below the post, says:
"However, if we were to be given the choice of either an Article 50 revocation or a no-deal, that is probably the one situation where I would feel compelled to opt for a no-deal. That would be my personal choice, on the basis that rejoining is simply not an option. The schism with the EU is already permanent – I can't see the UK ever again being a functional member of the Union".
This comes in a reply to TroJon who had earlier posted a comment, which started thus:
"Given that TM's deal leaves the UK worse off economically, culturally and socially by comparison with our privileged position within the EU and that a no-deal presages a catastrophe, it shocks me that Richard prefers a no-deal to revoking A50. For anyone less well informed than him I would regard his opinion as irresponsible, rather than merely ideological. And to see a further referendum as even worse than the government revoking A50 is puzzling for one wedded to democratic accountability.
"From his own blog Richard envisages a hit of £100 billion during the first six months post no-deal, followed most likely by long-term disinvestment, disruption to manufacturing and agriculture, and a major loss of jobs. Then we have had Sir Ivan Rogers blow out of the water any notion that "regaining control" is anything other than wishful thinking - a chimera, mirage, fantasy of the thoughtless".
We did not have to wait long for the thunderous reply from the man known to his followers as OGH (Our Good Host):
"It is hardly a matter of preference? We have been confronted by a series of unattractive choices, none of which are actually preferred.
"What I then have to deal with is the amount of superficial thinking, where people such as yourself opt for a course of action without having fully considered the circumstances and the consequences, yet are happy to dribble out meaningless mantras as a substitute for thought.
"As to revoking Article 50, I don't see that as an option for several reasons, not least because it would poison political relationships for a generation. The government has no mandate for this action and it would not solve anything.
"When we consider a referendum, there is the sheer impracticability to think of. How could we possibly organise a free and fair referendum in the time left, or in any amount of time? Given that we would need an Article 50 extension, why do we even think that the EU would grant us one that extended past the Euro-elections.
The rant continues quite a bit further but I won't bore you with the rest, the important insight to me is this idea that steering the nation away from the cataclysmic disaster he has himself been pointing to for years, would "poison political relationships" for a generation and the government "has no mandate" for it. This to me is like the driver of a Charabanc, on an outing to the seaside, realising he has taken a wrong turn and the whole thing is headed over a cliff, but not wanting to stop because it might spoil the passengers' day to be told they won't get on the beach as they expect.
Only someone so irrationally and single-mindedly opposed to the EU for ideological reasons could think that avoiding a no deal catastrophe must be a bad thing.
Laying waste to the car industry and much of the livestock farming business, food and medicine shortages and so on are apparently a price worth paying and won't poison political relationships. It is also, he thinks, something for which the government has a mandate.
He also talks about organising a free and fair referendum. The last one must have slipped his mind if he genuinely thought it was free and fair.
Richard North is not really that far removed from the ultras he despises. The EU is to both them and him, something akin to a North Korean labour camp and escape at any cost in blood and treasure is a bargain. It isn't.
The PM faces a dilemma. No deal or no Brexit. Any politician would in my opinion, make the decision to stop Brexit because to do otherwise would cause irreparable long term damage to the economy and to the livelihoods of thousands of people. No to mention the standing of this country and its place in the world.
No deal is not an option.
