Skip to main content

Leavers should accept Theresa May's deal

Nobody is happy with Theresa May's withdrawal agreement. To Remainers like myself, it's simply worse than EU membership. To Leavers, it represents the UK tied to the EU rules in perpetuity without any say in them, and with no real power to unilaterally withdraw.

As expected, it confirms the December 2017 joint report, that the UK will be bound to the rules of the EU custom's union and internal market until replaced by future agreements. The EU have made a big concession is allowing the UK as a whole to remain in the customs union, when they only really wanted to extend this to Northern Ireland.

From Britain's perspective, this is actually a really good deal. The threat of breaking up the union, the threat of no-deal chaos, and a cliff-edge on the negotiations is lifted. Of course, Britain's influence in Europe is gone, but that was always going to be the case. Industry can now continue to trade unimpeded for a while. Great Britain (probably) has the option to unilaterally withdrawn from the customs union if it wants to erect borders in the Irish Sea, although we would need to see the text of the deal first.

Leavers should be incredibly relieved that a withdrawal agreement exists at all. Yet it still faces some hurdles, as it needs to get past the cabinet and parliament. If it's rejected at either stage, then there would be an Article 50 extension, a general election, a people's vote, or no-deal chaos. All of these jeopardise Brexit if that's your thing. If the UK has no-deal, it would be a national humiliation, and the UK would be voting to rejoin the EU within 6 months.

It should be abundantly clear by now that no other outcome was possible. The deal that involves the EU capitulating and giving the UK everything it wants just doesn't exist. Brexit always meant ceding control. The way the UK takes back control is to become EU members so we can get proper representation of the UK's interests in the EU.

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Can information theory prove the existence of God?

I recently came across this website by Perry Marshall, which makes a really interesting proof of the existence of God. The argument is basically that DNA constitutes information (a code), yet all information that we know of is the product of a mind. Randomness cannot create information. Therefore, God exists. Lovely argument. Now let's pick some holes. 1) My first observation is that this argument is almost exactly the same as entropy. The argument is that DNA is a low entropy state. Yet randomness always increases entropy. Therefore DNA cannot be the product of random processes, therefore it must be the work of God (or Maxwell's Demon). However this argument is invalid because localised decreases in entropy are perfectly possible, and expected, even though the entropy of the system as a whole increases. Considering that the site claims to make use of information theory, it presumably is aware of information entropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy It fo...
3 comments
Read more

Breaking the Article 50 Impasse

Andrew Tyrie overestimates the UK's control over when the UK government can invoke Article 50. As with much of the Brexit debate, hope and aspiration trump cold hard reality. The next few months will see a lot of work by the UK government setting up new departments and policy positions relating to the triggering of Article 50 and Britain's exit from the EU. This is a sensible and necessary delay. However this article by The Independent makes the case that the UK should delay invoking Article 50 until we establish an informal agreement with the EU on our exit terms. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-andrew-tyrie-must-manage-unrealistic-expectations-warns-tory-mp-a7220681.html This is very desirable from the UK's perspective, but flatly contradicts statements by the EU (including direct statements by Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk and Cecilia Malmström, as well as official EU policy) that no talks can happen prior to invoking Article 50...
3 comments
Read more

Simulation independence

I recently came across Nick Boström's article about the simulation argument , which goes that there is a non-zero chance that we are actually simulated individuals, and not actually made of carbon at all. It was spun out of The Matrix series of movies, though is a recurring theme right from Descartes and the Brain in a Vat. Key to this idea is the argument of substrate independence , that is, carbon-based cells are not the only possible way of conjuring consciousness. Surely it isn't the carbon-based molecules per se that cause consciousness, but rather their configuration, and the kinds of computation (if that's the right word) being performed. Surely any "computer program" that reproduces the workings of the brain sufficiently well would suffice, since its operation and outputs would be essentially identical to the biological brain. The simulation argument goes that we are not all that far from achieving that level of computation, so therefore there may wel...
3 comments
Read more