I voted for the Prime Minister’s deal today. But the Commons didn’t – and we now all need a positive alternative.
Where Farage, Johnson and Paterson once praised the Norway option, it is now denounced as apostasy.
It is a glaring act of mental collectivisation to lump Our Future, Our Choice in with those who think that over 75s should not be allowed to vote.
It amounts to wishful thinking, not a workable, sustainable answer. And it’s not as easy to implement as some of its advocates make out.
It would be swift, fair and democratic solution to this sorry saga, allowing us to get back to meeting the challenges that helped fuelled the Brexit vote in the first place.
It is essential that voters do not come to believe that those politicians who support a free economy have become obsessed by leaving the EU.
Unlike the angel, we’re unable to announce tidings of great joy. But it’s worth mulling why the Christmas season can pause even Brexit hostilities.
The plan is not perfect. It is a compromise. But as its popularity grows, it has attracted some unfair and inaccurate criticism.
Norway-to-Canada was one thing. Norway-plus-the-backstop is another. It is inferior even to the Prime Minister’s proposed deal.
If all this is correct, the EEA route seems to me a sensible way forward if Parliament can’t agree on a deal.
If you want to be sure that Brexit happens, however much you might dislike this plan, there is only one course of action – vote for it.
For many voters, cutting it is a litmus test of whether Brexit has been carried out or not.
As a bloc with heightened economic weight, with the UK as a key influence, it would have greater flexibility to negotiate over issues such as immigration and budgetary contributions.
The benefits of this simple approach are that we can settle this debate now rather than condemn our country to years more argument.