The biggest issue is the question asked on Referendums.
The nanance is lost. The leave side gets to promise everything the stay side has to defend the warts of the current system. Any attacks from Stay on leave are parried with the Brexit we are supporting doesn't have those problems.
Britain did not vote in favor of a Hard Brexit.
Its like a referendum on the Canadian constitution being do you support changing the Canadian Constitution? vs an actual vote on the Charlottetown accord. The results will be different. Same with the Quebec Separation referendum question where 'Yes' voters were really voting for a better deal rather than actual separation.
So while I agree you can't just hold Referendums until you get the answer you want you also need to have a clear choice between two outcomes before holding a referendum.
So I think a second question on Hard Brexit vs Stay would be reasonable.
That said I think people over exaggerate the consequences. Britain can still require all companies use EU EN standards for all products. They just will no longer sit on the committees developing them.
Britain and the EU can choose to have no Customs enforcement in the Ireland zone and instead have Customs enforcement leaving Ireland on both sides or just accept higher rates of illegal activity at this boarder.
Even on Tarriffs both sides can start at status quo and not impose Tarrifs and only if trade wars develop would things start to change.
The EU has a vested interest in punishing Britain and therefore is threatening the Armageddon scenario to try to get a negotiated Brexit. If the UK calls the bluff the EU likely won't shoot themselves in the foot and and push Armageddon.
There obviously will be damage but certainly not as severe and many of the issues are easily solvable with a general action of leave the status quo until individual items are negotiated.
|