Brexit, we are continually told, will be good for the country. MPs are therefore tasked with delivering exactly that. They cannot sign off on a deal they feel will do the country harm.
Are you saying you'd be happy with any old brexit even if it f *cks the country up? Or suggesting Brexit is inherently a bad thing?
That's a great argument, WanChai, provided that you cherry pick your evidence.
There were Leave and Remain campaigns in the run up to the referendum. The Leave campaign - backed up by a publication put out by the Cameron government - set out the downside of leaving.
I agree with remain that there isn't a good economic case for leaving, but the public had the competing arguments set out before them and chose to do so. It is surely now the duty of those MPs who were elected on manifestoes that promised to honour the outcome of the referendum - the Tories and Labour - to do so.
Unfortunately the remainiacs are trying to kill off this country's future progress.How selfish are they,to prevent the next generation's huge opportunities in this country they would have in the global world.True there will be a few problems on the way but in a few years time this country will be more prosperous and we can invest more for future generations.Stay in this failing EU and we will continue to take orders from them and stagnate.We have voted,parliament MUST deliver.
I think that's a fair assumption, but what flows from that depends upon how you define 'bad for the country'.
The argument seems to have been reduced to a purely economic one, whereas I think it clear that other factors were in play, notably the public attitude to freedom of movement, the clear Federalist direction of the EU and notions of sovereignty.
The point is that the public had the arguments put in front of them and made their choice. The point that you made - that they were only told it would be good - doesn't hold water.