Kern wrote:
The result was 52-48 on a very blunt question. No plan for leaving was ever put forward: people were voting blind. Mrs May could, when she became prime minister, have recognised the massive splits in the country and sought a compromise plan that probably would have satisfied nobody but at least showed a willingness to bring people together, for example leaving the EU but staying in the EEA. Some benefits of membership, some of leaving (eg, not in the Union per se), but more in line with the outcome.
Instead, for reasons of keeping the Conservatives together, she opted for a hardest possible Brexit. It isn't unreasonable to think that such decisions should be made after an examination of all the options, especially when your main criticism of the opposition is they do things out of ideology, not evidence. I also don't think it's wise for Parliament to let the government proceed without a full understanding of the implications and options. It's very concerning when ministers are afraid to show their workings or justify their positions: they should be able to argue for their position based on the merits of the hard Brexit itself, rather having to resort to vague language or muttering about the 'will of the people' (and it's somewhat nauseating to hear Tories rely on the views of Jean-Jacques Rousseau!).
What do you mean that she "opted for the hardest possible Brexit"? As far as I can tell (which is not really very far) she seems to be just bungling her way through from one disaster to the next with no clear plan and hoping that the outcome will be some sort of a fudge.
I'm all for mitigating the disaster that they have wrought but a country is more than an economy and when I think it through I'm coming to believe that outright avoiding Brexit altogether would more damaging than going ahead. The divisions and hatred that these fucking clowns brought to the surface with their idiotic referendum would just get so much worse.