dumb Brexit question

[unblock]

4. i think the more specific error was in invoking article 50 before a deal.

the referendum was dead simple, and the option that "won" was simply "leave the european union".

it didn't specify a timing or a sequence or conditions.

may went and invoked article 50, which started the formal clock ticking on actually leaving the e.u.

*that* is what i think shouldn't have happened without a deal.

yes, article 50 allows for some time to negotiate a "smooth" exit, but the u.k.'s bargaining position, while never great in seeking an exit from the e.u., collapsed as soon as article 50 was invoked.

the e.u. wants to discourage exiting, so they have a desire to make this not pretty for the u.k., lest other member states try the same thing. so the closer the u.k. gets to crashing out of the e.u., the weaker the u.k.'s negotiating position gets.


i also think that once a deal had been negotiated, it would have made sense to make the details public and to have a second referendum regarding accepting that particular deal.


but then again, i think of public policy as trying to do things in a nation's best interest, so no one in politics would ever listen to me....