[kirrent]

I assume these tradeoffs you're thinking of might be proroguing parliament for political intent, purging anyone Cummings can't dominate from the cabinet, withdrawing the whip from anyone wanting to vote their conscience, attacking the independence of the judiciary any time it finds the government has acted illegally, and expelling journalists from the lobby for unfavourable coverage? It's a pity such tradeoffs are inevitable (if you exclude all previous governments from both sides of politics).

Snark aside, I think your comment is a useful example of a kind of patriotic (or dislike of international orders in general) motivated reasoning. Is the population of natives (perhaps citizens/residents would have fewer negative connotations?) really willing to bear costs and risks? It's a bit hard to know when there's been so much noise on the potential financial upsides/downsides of leaving the EU. Will people become more welcoming when freedom of movement is ended or does insularity have other costs? These are hard questions with difficult answers and patriotic optimism is no substitute. I'm certainly not prepared for you to assert anything about the cabinet being promising without proper justification.

All in all, I hope you're right. As far as I can tell the evidence is against you, but people survive falls from aeroplanes so stranger things have happened.

[rayiner]

> All in all, I hope you're right. As far as I can tell the evidence is against you, but people survive falls from aeroplanes so stranger things have happened.

How in earth can you say the evidence is against that view? The U.K. is the most successful country in the history of the world, and it achieved all of it without the EU. The U.K. has an established track record of success without the EU. It’s the EU that lacks any antecedent historical evidence of long term viability.

Maybe your point is that, in modern times, you need to be part of an “international order” to be prosperous. Australia, Canada, and Japan are stark counter examples—they’re richer than nearly every EU country and have achieved that without ceding sovereignty to an international body.

[qmmmur]

I'm sorry but if you think Australia is rich without America's defense budget you have some serious rethinking about geopolitics that you need to do.

[MagnumOpus]

> The U.K. is the most successful country in the history of the world, and it achieved all of it without the EU.

You might be too young to remember, but before joining the EU, the UK was something of a failed state. It had to go cap in hand to the IMF begging for handouts, the rubbish was piling up on the streets, and so on. Look up the Winter of Discontent.

Brexit not a choice between the British Empire or the EU, it is a choice for being run by Johnson’s SPADs rather than a sane government.

[cmdshiftf4]

>Is the population of natives (perhaps citizens/residents would have fewer negative connotations?) really willing to bear costs and risks?

86% of the current population of the UK was born there. The overwhelming majority voted for the current Tory government and as such, for Brexit.

So therefore yes, I believe the natives are likely to bear the costs and risks.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_the...

[MagnumOpus]

Only 42% voted for Tories, while more than 50% voted for parties endorsing a 2nd referendum. So much for “the overwhelming majority voted for Tories”.