Thread by @syrpis

This story seems to be getting a lot of attention, and strong support from some unlikely sources. I think it is fundamentally misconceived. Short thread. 1/
theguardian.com/politics/2019/…

On its face, the plan seems simple enough. The WA is the concrete Brexit we have. No deal is unconscionable. Parliament is gridlocked. Why not let the people choose between Brexit and remain, now that we know more about what Brexit will look like? 2/

I can understand why it appeals to those who want to remain. This is a chance to stop Brexit. For the more cynical, the worse the Brexit option, the better. The chances of remain winning a PV are increased. 3/

But, there is a better route for remainers. Remainers can, citing the failure of Govt to provide a good deal, argue not for a PV, but for revocation of A50. As I've argued for a while... blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/12… 4/

The bigger issues are on the leave side. From the article: 'for leavers it offers a definitive end to the withdrawal process with Brexit sealed once and for all'. I suggest that leavers may not be happy to leave on the basis of the current WA. Ask them. 5/

The WA, with the dreaded backstop, and the promise of continuing alignment with, and proximity to, the EU is anathema to many (eg in the ERG). They want Brexit; but they want a different Brexit. The suggested PV offers them nothing. 6/

And what about the Labour leadership? Their position is that they want Brexit, but that they want significant changes to the WA/PD package. The current WA? No. Remain? No. The suggested PV offers them nothing. 7/

So... this does not work for leavers; who still cling to their hopes of a better Brexit. And it is dishonest for remainers - to back a deal which would otherwise fall in Parliament, so that it can be put to the people, so that it can be rejected. 8/

Isn't it better to put the deal out of its misery, to seek to find a better deal, and, if that's not possible, to revoke A50? 9/9