Brexit thread 2 Electric Boogaloo

[CCTV]

I think it's quite simple why the EU wants to make leaving it sting the UK. Because it's better for the EU and the countries in it this way. Why should it protect the interests of UK citizens? Obviously the EU thinks it's in a good position to get what it wants, looking more and more likely that's not the case.

You argue below that building a big bloc is essential. I disagree. How do you think alienating the Brits serves the eu well? Is treating them poorly going to benefit the unity within Europe? The only logical reason for doing so is to preserve the institution. To terrify other member states from leaving, though that may be illegal for a euro using nation. Isolating the best army in Europe whose closest ally is America having antagonised Russia in recent years is not a particularly good idea. look at global armies, the USA stands out as the biggest, most powerful by far. If Britain leaves eu will have 2 of the 10 more important armies in the world. If we need an army for security purposes what is the benefit of isolating britain -Europe's most strategically important army. Why for the sake of removing/adding tariffs would you risk antagonizing the British via trade ?

The antidote to big block is indeed more big blocks. Divided we fall and united we stand. That's one of the reasons Europe was at peace (mostly) between the Napoleonic wars and WWI. The Concert of Europe and the brilliance of the diplomats of the era. That being best epitomised by Bismarck in the latter part of the period. Build up your own strength, construct a web of alliances that ensure any war unfavourable for the aggressor, sit back and enjoy your schnapps.

We need a bigger block so as to prevent America (NATO partner) or Russia from invading Europe and starting another war. They are held up as being less than Europe, but we need to become more like the use or usse paradoxically. It's an interesting perspective if not one that's deeply flawed in a philosophical sense. Again we can examine what is the eu ? What is its charter and what is it delivering and responsible for ?
I'd argue the euro was a key move in us trying to become like the USA. It has gone badly for us, as ever with eu politics we'll carry on regardless of the damage these institutional desires deliver.

By the way, CC, thanks again for talking to be about this stuff. I really am learning a lot and getting a much better picture of the role the EU plays in my life. Don't mistake my reluctance to accept your anti-EU positions as being against them. As I've said all along, there are a lot of good reasons to not like the EU, I just want to understand more about them. Preferably without having to put too much time into it, which is where you come in. Again, thanks for that. If we ever meet each other irl, I'll buy you a beer.

Might even return the favour However I cant help you out to much with the time. If you ain't got it I cant give it to you.

[Balinkay]

@CC

See what you mean about the polls more clearly now. Still don't have enough to agree, but you are definitely closer to the issue than me so you probably know more about the situation in the country.

That video with Andrew Neil was hilarious. I think I'd have passed out from the embarrassment. Some scummy tactics on there. Both sides used scummy tactics. But I'm not sure the video is meant to show anything more than that. I don't it even definitively illustrates that there was a well thought out single position among the leaders of the Brexit movement, let alone the voters?

Agree about the army. Over here in Krautland there's big uproar about them wanting an aircraft carrier. Wether or not the army itself is a good idea is a different matter, the point is that they/we want one.

Regarding interests of EU citizens - the EU is one of several organisations that's meant to protect their interests. Their governments and to a lesser extent the likes of the UN and NATO as. And yes, the EU is probably responsible for regulation within the EU. I'm not sure what you're implying with the question. As for the two year dalay - like I said, it's deplorable if someone did that on purpose just to protect someone's financial interests and heads must fly. I'll try to take a look at your presentation later today and comment on it, as it's seemingly quite pertinent to these issues.

Again, I don't understand your point about equality. If the trend of more inequality is widespread (is it world wide?) and there are countries that follow this trend but are still pretty good in Europe and even some countries that don't follow it at all in the EU, doesn't that suggest that the EU might not be to blame. Again, this probably ties into me not knowing enough about the Euro, if I get round to it, I'll take a look at what you posted. The problem with me just taking you at your word is that you're clearly of the opinion that the Euro is "bad". And you dislike the EU. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest all the stuff you posted about it suggests the same. This isn't a dig at you; I doubt any normal person would post something to discredit their opinion when discussing stuff online. So in order to form a comprehensive opinion I'd need to read all the pieces that rebuke the claims made in yours, weed out the sillier ones and post the rest here. That takes time and energy which I'm not prepared to invest right now.

As I've said from the beginning, this thread wasn't started with the idea of me trying to defend the EU agains the eeevil racist bigots who hate waffles and have Union Jack tattoos. I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the subject so I'd like to know more, but don't feel like studying European law for three years. Hell, I'm not even hugely convinced Brexit is a bad idea. I keep questioning you because I know you like to argue online and there's seemingly a hell of a lot I can learn from you.

Answering what the EU's exact role and what it actually does in everyday life for everyone of us is very difficult. Which was one of my original points in the original thread - looked from the outside like a lot of people were voting on something where they had pretty much no idea what that something actually does. Intuitively I would tend do think the EU should help to regulate those German car manufacturer disasters. But they've been discovered and now the responsible parties are going to be punished. Imagine how many of these go unnoticed!

Understand your opinion on refugees better now, cheers. Yes, ideally there should be none but that's not going to happen and yes, your own economic interests should come if not first, quite high up.

Honestly your last point sounds like you just being annoyed at cover ups and ascribing them to the more left leaning nature of the countries in questions's politics these days. That you seemingly think is a consequence of the EU, which is fair enough I suppose. But at the end of the day it's the people voting for their leadership, no? For example Denmark took in the lowest number of refugees in nine years in 2017. I was under the impression that countries had a large say in how many refugees could come in, which is why some, like the UK, took in so few and some, like Germany, took in a lot more.

I'm not sure what oversexualisation of children really is, I'll look into it. Can imagine why you'd not post about it here though.

[Balinkay]

Oh, just saw you had another post.

You've explained it rather well - basically "If you want to leave, that's fine, just know that my people are more important than yours now.". If the May deal is as bad for the UK as is being touted and basically turns the UK into a "vassal state of Europe" (words from some UKIP dude) that's surely good for Europe? Or at least better than WTO rules. At the end of the day, it's about making the best out of a bad situation and finding the balance between not annoying the UK so much that they won't help out with security, but still showing strength by holding you positions firm on trade.

Erm, it's not paradoxical. When Persia invaded Hellas in Antiquity a bunch of the city states put aside their differences and came together to fight a common foe. The whole "we need to become more like them" is cheap at best - become more like Russia in what sense? Militarily we probably should. When it comes to gay rights, we probably shouldn't. The US - free speech, probably; impossible student loan, probably not. Somehow suggesting that a closer military cooperation between countries ensures that other outside countries suddenly have more cultural influence over the cooperators looks rather far fetched.

[CCTV]

@CC See what you mean about the polls more clearly now. Still don't have enough to agree, but you are definitely closer to the issue than me so you probably know more about the situation in the country.

That video with Andrew Neil was hilarious. I think I'd have passed out from the embarrassment. Some scummy tactics on there. Both sides used scummy tactics. But I'm not sure the video is meant to show anything more than that. I don't it even definitively illustrates that there was a well thought out single position among the leaders of the Brexit movement, let alone the voters?

Agree about the army. Over here in Krautland there's big uproar about them wanting an aircraft carrier. Wether or not the army itself is a good idea is a different matter, the point is that they/we want one.

Regarding interests of EU citizens - the EU is one of several organisations that's meant to protect their interests. Their governments and to a lesser extent the likes of the UN and NATO as. And yes, the EU is probably responsible for regulation within the EU. I'm not sure what you're implying with the question. As for the two year dalay - like I said, it's deplorable if someone did that on purpose just to protect someone's financial interests and heads must fly.

I'll try to take a look at your presentation later today and comment on it, as it's seemingly quite pertinent to these issues.

Again, I don't understand your point about equality. If the trend of more inequality is widespread (is it world wide?) and there are countries that follow this trend but are still pretty good in Europe and even some countries that don't follow it at all in the EU, doesn't that suggest that the EU might not be to blame. Again, this probably ties into me not knowing enough about the Euro, if I get round to it, I'll take a look at what you posted.

The problem with me just taking you at your word is that you're clearly of the opinion that the Euro is "bad". And you dislike the EU. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest all the stuff you posted about it suggests the same. This isn't a dig at you; I doubt any normal person would post something to discredit their opinion when discussing stuff online. So in order to form a comprehensive opinion I'd need to read all the pieces that rebuke the claims made in yours, weed out the sillier ones and post the rest here.


Answering what the EU's exact role and what it actually does in everyday life for everyone of us is very difficult. Which was one of my original points in the original thread - looked from the outside like a lot of people were voting on something where they had pretty much no idea what that something actually does.

Intuitively I would tend do think the EU should help to regulate those German car manufacturer disasters. But they've been discovered and now the responsible parties are going to be punished. Imagine how many of these go unnoticed!

Understand your opinion on refugees better now, cheers. Yes, ideally there should be none but that's not going to happen and yes, your own economic interests should come if not first, quite high up.

Honestly your last point sounds like you just being annoyed at cover ups and ascribing them to the more left leaning nature of the countries in questions's politics these days. That you seemingly think is a consequence of the EU, which is fair enough I suppose.

But at the end of the day it's the people voting for their leadership, no? For example Denmark took in the lowest number of refugees in nine years in 2017. I was under the impression that countries had a large say in how many refugees could come in, which is why some, like the UK, took in so few and some, like Germany, took in a lot more.

I'm not sure what oversexualisation of children really is, I'll look into it. Can imagine why you'd not post about it here though.

The way I see the eu is rather simple it is the most powerful level of government for all its member states. Much like you have local government like councillors and more power in parliament. As such it is the highest body of responsibilty for people in the eu and it is a political and economic union.

The eu exists in the wider world. It must deal with other political institutions and trades on the open world economy, as nations do also. I accept and agree with you that many of the issues I raise are global ones. My point here is in asking what does the eu do to protect its citizens and how is it different from the world. To me pro-EU people tend to declare its charter and fail to analyse its performance against its charter. Like it funds science in Europe so we should be really grateful for the science it produces. When science/reserch it produces/funds is a big problem and the area has several predictable issues it is said this is a global problem.
This to me is too biased. Eu good praise eu, eu bad blame the globe. I've listed several areas where analysis shows that citizens welfare is not benefiting as many would declare it to be so. So far I believe I have provided the most details on the Brexit vote and the eu as an entity. You can take my position with a pinch of skepticism but I think I have slightly more of an evidence based opinion on the eu. Might not be right of course because it is more informed.
My own interests into the eu were promted after a discussion with a rather interesting Philosophy & Psychoanalytic lecturer and author.
I being a young adult had a very pro-eu idea as that is what we are taught. Looking into the eu though I've changed my opinion on my looking and examining it more. Again this doesn't mean I have the correct view necessarily.

I posted figures which have not been contested by anyone in the thread yet. They specifically show the 350mill for the NHS as being fictitious/lies. It is the gross amount the UK would pay if it didnt get its 'rebate/discount' it does show however that the UK is a net contributor and was likely to have been more of a net contributor in the coming years.
The UK has helped build up EU states and I think it's a pity to see the UK being treated as it has been for seeking a divorce. It seems to me the eu being a bit SJW has a very different idea of divorce deals for nations than citizens. If we caricature the eu as being the dominant partner of the uk and it is making it very difficult to leave the relationship with threats of financial vulnerability and blaming it for the divorce we'd call that abuse on the personal level and failing to acknowledge it's part in the breakdown.
Weve had our own referendums over here and it is my opinion that in these instances both sides lie on facts/details. One instance in our abortion debate was the number of babies with down syndrome being aborted with reference to the disappearance/cleansing projections via abortions. The pro-life said in the UK it was 94% were aborted, pro-choice said it was only 40% - still above the general rate. I took a little time to find the truth at source. 70% of parents to be take the test to identify down syndrome in the UK, where a result is confirmed 94% abort (I might be a bit off on recall). The other 30% who dont take the test I'd put as a general rate of abortions 10%, it could be 0. Anyway you have a figure of 65.8% or 68.8%(adding on the 3%) let's say that is the range. The true figure roughly speaking is in between both campaigns facts on this issue. I couldn't find the 40% figure anywhere.
I truly believe as standards have declined in science politics etc that referendums/campaigns are no more than a vote grabbing exercise rather than an informing and leave the voter decide, informing oneself is now firmly the responsibility of the voter. Very few people believe politics or the press are honest so the mitigation of such poor campaigning is very few take any on their word.

On Brexit I think it was quite clear what the Brexit campaign was about. Need only look at Farage and the eurosceptics in the conservative party who campaigned for it. To leave the eu or to stay within it. The brexiteers proposal was to leave the eu and become an independent nation once again. The manner or mechanisms were purported that theyd find some trade agreement with Europe. They didnt want to lose trade relationships and believed they could become an independent nation, continue to trade with their EU partners and develop trade deals across the world.
The majority of people who voted to leave would prefer a no deal presently. This option is being refused by parliament and May herself who took it off the table in negotiations and is now trying to force through her deal at a cost. Taking it off the negotiating table was a very poor strategy.
So the winners of the referendum are not permitted to get their preferred outcome on this matter. This is where accusations of betrayal begin. The counter point is that while they won the referendum they didnt win the withdrawl method. But they won a withdrawal and the only method seems to be to bounce out on a no deal. The legal default position.
It is quite disingenuous to try and misrepresent what they voted for. They know what they voted for and it wasnt May's deal. In the UK it was too complex for them to understand in the USA it was the Russians hacked their feeble minds.
The political negotiations as I see it and as polling data shows it is that both UK and EU politics has lived up to its poor standing in the publics mind.

The presentation is pertinent. It touches on trends across medicine/medical research, big food & pharma. Outside of this presentation there are numerous psychological indicators which show that the quality of life is on the decline. We're in regression when you look at the area of public health and living.
The area of oversexualisation of children is similar in that it looks at numerous levels or means of influence that lead to an overall effect. I guess you're familiar with Aristotle's golden mean. Freud had a paper on civilisation which ties in well with this idea in this area. His proposal was that where society was too repressive of the sexual instinct neuroticism would be the disorder in society. Where the repression is too weak the disorder in society is hysteria. In the culture wars society has rebelled against say repression of sexuality. But it has erred too far and now we are suffering from the consequences of too little repression. This is what we are seeing across the wider political spectrum, an imbalance and one seen in our institutions.
Its a huge area which looks at the level of influences in culture and ends with statistics of rape, unwanted sex etc. There are real people who think the bible is the source of sexual violence and porn is harmless. The evidence doesnt support this cultural ideation which is quite common.
There was a program on channel4 recently where mothers were making (directing not featuring in) porn for their children/teens/young adults. I didnt watch it but this is a symptomatic display of the phenomenon in our society as I see it. Mothers wanted to make porn that was suitable for their children as kids as young as say 9 are watching porn on mobiles. They weren't making it for 9 year olds tbc but this was one of their reasons as kids at that age access porn on mobiles etc. Of old masturbation was a sin, today girls getting raped is a frequent top trender in porn - according to one of the mothers who made the porn.
Political aims are to introduce sexual education at ages 6-8 which merely is further sexualising of childhood.
The actual area is far more scientific than my presentation. But I'm trying to keep it short and stay away from areas like increased presentation of young females with tears in their anus/vagina, experiencing unwanted sex etc

If you look at the eu it is driving towards more and more harmonisation of the zone. Unfortunately the zone is actually diverse in economics/politics and falling apart due to this aim. The euro is the institutions desire to produce a United states of Europe, though it does seem to be delivering this through a USSE will. Latest poll shows 40% of French would vote for Frexit.
There was little controversy in the eu till the euro arrived. Nothing of the scale we've seen since, though there have always been opponents to the eu. The eu is aware that really it needs and needed two euro currencies as the zone is essentially made up of two different economies. It took its institutional desire to have a single currency and has tried to force a singular economic and currency model on a region that isn't suited to it.
You can look at traditional markers of economies and see many economies have shrunk under austerity, unemployment issues within the zone, debt ratios increased.
Again we see here an attempt at domination when looking at 2 large cohorts. The eu will lead to one economic model gaining an advantage over another.

Inequality is a separate issue and the trends predate the euro. It is a consistent global phenomena over the last 50 years. Inequality has risen between worlds (1-3) and within nations, the only exceptions are within a few Scandinavian countries over recent years. I've posted a few links to articles and YouTube on this already so not much point in saying more than that here.

I'm not sure what your 2nd last paragraph is about. I cant grasp a coherent idea from it.

On institutions and dominant ideologies it seems the lessons have not been learned. It's the nature of power. The Stanford prison experiment imo is a good example of what has happened in our societies. It seems that the say liberal guards are unaware of the influence their power has had on their behaviour. Power corrupts even the non racist lovely people, you know the new priests. While wolves in sheepskins take advantage of the woolly prestige.

https://www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html
^^ decent and simple time wise
http://popstats.unhcr.org/en/overview#_ga=2.88470296.2056024488.1553727449-1385023223.1553442139
This second link has an interactive graph.

1975- world population 4.07 billion.
3.6 million people of concern - 3.53 million refugees
2017- world population 7.55 billion
71.44 million people of concern - 19.94 million refugees

I've taken the world population figures from googling.
A little over more than 4 decades where the world population has nearly doubled. There are 5.65 times the number of refugees today.
19.85 times the numbers of people of concern or displaced persons.

Year 2000 - 21.87 million people of concern
Year 2017 - 71.44 million people of concern

If its broke, fix it. If theres a benefit, look at the beneficiary. If there are specific regions where it is prominent, look into those regions.

[CCTV]

Will get back to your second post later.

[CCTV]

Oh, just saw you had another post.

You've explained it rather well - basically "If you want to leave, that's fine, just know that my people are more important than yours now.". If the May deal is as bad for the UK as is being touted and basically turns the UK into a "vassal state of Europe" (words from some UKIP dude) that's surely good for Europe? Or at least better than WTO rules. At the end of the day, it's about making the best out of a bad situation and finding the balance between not annoying the UK so much that they won't help out with security, but still showing strength by holding you positions firm on trade.

Erm, it's not paradoxical. When Persia invaded Hellas in Antiquity a bunch of the city states put aside their differences and came together to fight a common foe. The whole "we need to become more like them" is cheap at best - become more like Russia in what sense? Militarily we probably should. When it comes to gay rights, we probably shouldn't. The US - free speech, probably; impossible student loan, probably not. Somehow suggesting that a closer military cooperation between countries ensures that other outside countries suddenly have more cultural influence over the cooperators looks rather far fetched.

The first paragraph seems to be a continuation of a reply to the first post/reply. Most of it I cant make sense of or connect your point

They came together when attacked. Interesting example. We come together when we are attacked.
It seems the actuality is we're coming together now in the eu in case we are attacked, or even to attack as some eu types would like. It's a differnet mindset and one thats more commonplace today.

In 2007 Lisbon treaty 1 which we rejected, the eu army was one of the issues that was pertinent over here. The idea of an eu army has festered for sometime.

The narrative now is the eu wants an army to protect itself from its NATO partner the USA and/or Russia. (NATO is the EU's best army as it has Britain and the massive USA army)

This follows on from trump telling some of the NATO partners they needed to spend more on their military and reach the 2% of GDP target where the USA nearly spends double that amount.
Conveniently this remark from trump would not apply to the UK. France & Germany who are now pushing for the/their eu army are both not spending at 2% of GDP.
Are France and Germany looking to use the eu coffers to pay for their military spend deficit ?
Do you or they think they need to leave NATO with America a declared perceived threat now ?

Youd think they'd thank Britain for committing to the NATO target rate as one of Europes big economies given their fears even.

If America is a perceived threat to the EU-France/Germany and they are vocalising this concern how do you think this is sitting with their NATO partner, the USA. A much bigger economy spending double the target rate.

If you look at the geographic advancements it's hard to argue against the idea that Russia has seen further and further NATO expansion along its borders.

So having had NATO expand towards Russia, the eu treating the UK rather poorly and openly declaring that the USA (the big NATO partner) is a military threat and a good reason for starting up an EU army also, how do you think this is in our interests ?

(Excluding the UK people as you have done so far from European citizenry)

It seems to me that having had the USA, Britain & Russia put an end to Nazi Germany's grip over Europe. France & Germany are antagonizing all 3 while trying to raise a European army and consolidate further European integration/dominance in the political-economical realm.

Go ahead EU-France/Germany build a EU army to rival the yanks who have close ties with the UK who you've treated poorly and see how that works out for you. What will the Americans think when they see you building up an adequate force ?

Playing hardball with Britain via the EU, declaring the USA a threat to some extent already and perhaps continue to declare further dissatisfaction with her, see how Russia might behave differently on the eastern front.

I'm open to big corrections here as I now people are into this stuff. But as it stands presently this is how I see it.
Russia essentially is limited to a very minimal capacity for expansion. Maybe into places where people want or identify as Russian.
America is the main reason they wouldn't want to step on too many toes. The Russians have seemingly decided to intervene in countries where they are requested to provide assistance. Like Syria and potentially Venezuela. It does seem they are a bit fooked off with all the 21st century NATO expansionism, regime change, freedom gifting etc.

Many of the NATO nations peoples are pretty fooked off with these wars/interventions too, the horrific civilian casualties, the loss of soldiers, return of heroin fields in Afghanistan, open slave trade in Libya, ISIS in Iraq and Syria, the refugees and displaced persons.

Maybe France & Germany should just stump up the cash themselves. Then use NATO to build some diplomatic relationships with Russia and put an end to the awful increases we are seeing in civilian casualties and displaced persons.

The world problems arent confined to military problems. Armies are needed, but so is diplomacy and political class and tact.

[Balinkay]

Sorry for the late reply.

I'm rather busy these days and these posts take a long time to write, so I'll limit myself to only a few words from now on, if at all.

I'll try to keep it short: no, I don't think Germany and France need to leave NATO or would be dumb enough to do so in the immediate future. The German army is a joke. The French one isn't though. There's an old saying - "A country that does not feed it own army, feeds someone else's". Not necessarily with money or food mind you. For the record, the EU army is not a great idea imo. If the continent were to unite in a single federation, sure. This will likely never happen and if it does, it will take multiple decades. Until it happens, a united army is premature.

However, if you do want to challenge US political influence, you kind of need guns. France and Germany are perhaps being cheeky about who pays for them guns, but they're not wrong in wanting to have them from their point of view. If the EU wants to act like a superpower, it need an army. Whether it should is a completely different matter. I'm not 100% convinced that's the case.

[CCTV]

Thats understandable Bali time is limited, you might answer some questions here when you get the chance

If people think their politicians are slippery, why do they think eu politicians are anything different when they come from the same pool ?

What are our interests as eu citizens?
How is the eu to be measured ?
I'd suggest these two are strongly interlinked.

The first question, I'd posit as blind faith in the eu as an institution as the answer.

The second questions, I've put up a few areas and I think it can't be denied that this is the best metric for measuring the functioning of any political system. The welfare of its citizens.

Look forward to your answers when you get the chance to reply.

[CCTV]

Well what the fook is going on in the UK now ?

Having pledged no deal was better than a bad deal umpteen times and that theyd leave the eu by the 29th of March, Britain is set to remain in the UK until such time as a withdrawal agreement can be agreed upon ().
If the deal is not agreed the UK will take part in the European elections.
May having sought a short deal and the eu mooted to prefer a long deal, may got a medium deal. Her extension is set till the end of October. While the 1st of November the next day is the next time a motion of no confidence can be tabled.

[CCTV]

It seems they are giving as much time as she is likely to get from parliament to try and force through a deal. Think she'd be gone if they could table a no confidence bid now.

May says she is hopeful of securing an agreement before the European elections...

How will May secure any deal now?

She told her brexiteers to vote for her bad deal and she'd step aside as leader of the party if it passed.

Then under eu advice/orders/wishes she reached out to Corbyn in an attempt to reach cross party agreement as the eu would prefer to tie in both main parties to an agreement.

Corbyn though is looking for a different deal and more importantly a general election. On the face of it no deal looks better than either leaders options imo.

The Tories members are furious as is the parliamentary party. They see the move towards Corbyn as treacherous.

So may has alienated most of her own party and its membership. Has invited in Corbyn to agree a deal that he doesnt think is in his interests to agree to, so as to get an election and better returns.
Yet may remains hopeful and is more confident now than ever of a deal being passed.

About 2 in 3 of Tory voters would prefer a no deal which iirc parliaments only voted agreement was to take it away as an option by a very slim majority - 0.16%.

Labour voters favour leaving the eu from 25-40%. Say 1 in 4.

It looks like there could be about half of the labour&conservatives vote willing to move away from their traditional 2 parties on this big issue. Whether they do and it manifests in seats is a bit beyond me to say really as the UK system seems to be quite good at maintaining their parliamentary seats.

You have nigel's Brexit party now too and UKIP which might also split the leave vote.

Remainers who seem utterly without hope for the future should a no deal Brexit occur are left with a labour party with Corbyn in charge as their hope. Yet Corbyn if elected as primeminister would represent another risk to material wealth and economic prowess. The markets/banks do not like him at all and some investment firms reckon hes likely a bigger risk than a no deal Brexit to the economy. So the remain party whose concerned about no deal Brexit risks are left with a remain Corbyn risk.

Whatever the costs (likely short term) of a no deal Brexit, I think the failure to adhere to the result of the referendum and the law will have a far greater cost than a no deal Brexit.

The fookin state of politics these days, it's a farce and a sham and a farce..
Have to say its utterly bizarre these days