Thread by @mwardm

. @RoryStewartUK posted a video about how he intended to vote for Johnson's deal - saying
something about compromising in order to move forward, I think?
This caused me to consider (and don't worry, I'm not a very deep thinker so this won't be hard to follow):

What is it that Brexit-supporters actually stand to lose if Brexit is cancelled?
I stand ready to be corrected (this definitely isn't my area) but as far as I can see, the answer - currently - is pretty much nothing.

You could argue something about the 9bn or so we send to the EU, but I think everybody considers that small beer by now.
You could argue something about trust in democracy (but maybe let me finish before you argue that one).

Seems to me the thing Brexit-supporters would actually be losing is the *potential* for our Parliament to change laws / regulations / agreements that we
currently can't change unilaterally, because we're restricted from doing so by our membership of the EU.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but (perhaps barring some immigration-related stuff [that I think civil servants suggested couldn't be implemented as written]?)
I don't think we've seen any concrete information as to what actual changes leavers want to make?

Now let's consider "compromise". A compromise seems like it ought to be the end result of some kind of negotiation (and hopefully obviously, I'm talking about between leavers and remainers here).

I know next to nothing about negotiation.
I remember that years ago I read a quote in the papers from - I think - a well-known and respected negotiator who had been involved in mediating Middle East peace talks. It was short and made perfect sense - and I

wish I could remember much more about it! I have the vague impression that it suggested there were two separate things to consider - like each side would have their demands, but that those were really driven by their motivations.

And understanding the motivations of the sides was key to finding a compromise... or something?
The other thing I think I know is that each side is always going to start by asking for too much. (Wheeler Dealers 😁)

Now, since I'm not a very deep thinker, I'm not exactly sure whether those points support this thread or not... but they must somehow inform it.
It seems to me that (particularly with Johnson's deal)

Brexiters have come straight out with an initial demand for (more than) everything they want. It gives them access to a hard Brexit where (at the expense of Northern Ireland) Parliament will be free to make myriad changes to the laws of Great Britain, unmoderated by

...our agreements within the EU.
It certainly burns our bridges on our current EU relationship.

If we're really negotiating and looking for a compromise, it's a no brainer to say NO to this demand. Saying yes guarantees we're out of the EU - which is the minimum the leavers "need", and doesn't guarantee much [anything?] of any value to remainers.

In the wrong hands, the WA is a blank cheque to Brexiteers, right?
And we haven't even got to motivation yet - just demands. Don't we need to understand - from Brexite(e)rs - their motivation?

Do we know what they actually want? What concrete plans they want to put into action that the EU prevents? Maybe if we knew, we could work out a compromise? (And maybe if we don't we need to make sure there are safeguards in place.)

Let's not forget also that the motivation we're talking about here can't really by the motivation of *the people*, can it? The people (just about) issued the demand, after a referendum in which a lot of untruths were told. We can't tell what they all want.

It must be the motivation of those sufficient ongoing influence that we're talking about. Ministers, Government, and people / MPs who have their ear.
Surely it's necessary to know what "they" intend... while "we" still have any control over things?

(Mostly rhetorical stuff there. I'm hoping deep thinkers will read more into it than the author deliberately put there.)

One more thing has just occurred to me - a metaphor for @RoryStewartUK's voting for the deal. It's the scene in I'm-sure-several films (though none occur to me at the moment) where there's a bit of a scramble, the good guy picks up the gun and he has the baddie covered. But!

The goodie can't do everything by himself, so he hands the gun over to one of the other blokes - a bloke we're not really sure about. Will the bloke keep the baddie covered, as we hope? Or will he turn and, perhaps offering some weak excuse, point the gun at the goodie?

Of course, the other bloke is Boris Johnson. Where's he going to point the gun, Rory? (Don't worry - it's only the future of the country at extreme stake!) And....

Were you clever enough to remove the bullets before you handed it to him?

[Ends]

@threadreaderapp Unroll my own thread if you're not too busy, please!