Some straight talk on Brexit from The Economist.
Nonetheless, it is clear that Mrs May’s deal is in almost every respect worse than the carefully constructed one Britain already has, which gives it the benefits of being in the EU, while allowing it to opt out of the single currency, maintain its own passport checks and receive a large budget rebate. New barriers to trade will sever its dynamic services industry from its largest market and could damage Britain’s manufacturing supply chains. Under the Irish arrangement, Britain will until further notice have to follow EU rules that it has no say in writing, suggesting subservience, not the reclamation of sovereignty. The fallout could lead to further constitutional and territorial damage, including the rupture of the union with Northern Ireland and Scotland.
It seems that a lot of people were quite sure that being part of the EU meant that the UK got a lot of people from outside moving in and nothing else. They’re discovering that actually, they were getting quite a lot. Now there are a some options that range from bad (May’s deal) to disastrous (no-deal exit).
As the Economist points out, voting that they wanted out is not the same as voting for a specific plan. They should just have another referendum. It’ll be complicated and politically costly for some, but the alternatives are all worse (not to mention the likely future referendums on the status of Scotland and Northern Ireland).