MANY of the bold claims made by leading Brexiteers before and after the referendum have, to put it delicately, not aged well.
Michael Gove, ahead of the 2016 vote, proclaimed: “The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want.”
Fellow eurosceptic David Davis famously said: “There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside.”
Two and half years after the UK narrowly voted for Brexit, the sunny uplands appear as distant as ever.
Not only has Parliament overwhelmingly rejected the draft deal agreed between the Prime Minister and the EU, but the Commons arithmetic makes any deal unlikely.
Even if a majority of MPs were to put aside partisan advantage and make difficult compromises, it is far from clear whether such a ragged plan would be rubber stamped by the EU.
The result of this shambles is that the UK, thanks to Theresa May prematurely invoking Article 50 in 2016, is hurtling towards a no deal exit at the end of March.
It cannot be under-estimated just how much of a disaster this would be for the economy. GDP would fall substantially and lower revenues would usher in a type of austerity politics that would make the last decade feel like the good old days.
Unless a resolution is found, the UK is on the verge of a national catastrophe. Our Westminster politicians would never be forgiven for putting citizens through such hardship.
As we report today, key bodies in civic Scotland are demanding that Article 50 is extended so that more time can be devoted to getting this decision right. These calls should be heeded.
There may not be an obvious majority for a specific Brexit plan, but most MPs are horrified by the prospect of a no deal departure. Brexit should be delayed – and fast.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel