-
Even voting NO if what comes back from negotiations, on the balance of probabilities, will harm their constituencies more than staying in the EU
How is that going to be judged? A lot of experts said that Brexit would be harmful but the majority of constituencies still voted for it.
aggi-
Fair point.
So for that Labour needs to speak to their constituents:
If they are all for human rights, May is thinking about pulling the UK out of the European Human Rights conventions which means any court cases have to be fought for way longer, for a lot more money.
If they think it means more protection for workers, they risk losing that with the stance of MayThere seems to have been a lot of "the EU is evil technocrats" but I am hoping that can be boiled down to practical reasons and rights, which we all risk losing.
If it's just identity politics and concerns about EU policies that the UK can improve staying in it, but people just want to vote on principle, then it's a lost battle as it's too vague.
So then we risk losing worker protections, dump the economy, empower even bigger assholes in the UK but it's OK the left has spoken.
JWestland
It doesn't have to be a second referendum: Even voting NO if what comes back from negotiations, on the balance of probabilities, will harm their constituencies more than staying in the EU or demanding money to solve issues is something.
Talk about the EU being "technocrats" and "capitalists" and "undemocratic" and then playing in the hands of exactly those types in the UK, don't see that ending well.