50

As a German, it seems to me that No Deal Brexit without preparations would hurt so much that it makes no sense to prefer it. That is so clear that it should be the case for any conceivable expectation for what happens.

It makes sense that a participant in the negotiations of the kind of Brexit states he wants No Deal Brexit for strategic reasons as part of the negotiation.

But I would not understand that anybody honestly wants a No Deal Brexit as the result. Note the term "honest" is not used as a rhetorical filler word or so, it is actually about honesty.

Again, I assume the results of No Deal without preparations are so bad in both short and long term in any conceivable future that it is bad in an objective way. My political views should not be relevant here. I excluded anything political to reach the assumption about the severity.

Are there participants expecting No Deal to have a better outcome than any other options? Even if it is only better for the person itself (Which may or may not be malicious)?

The question is not whether somebody has publicly stated he wants No Deal, but whether somebody actually think No Deal is the best option. This person probably also has stated it publicly.

Alternatively, it would be interesting if somebody would choose No Deal as backup option. But it may not be deeply reflected what it means if it is a backup, and less relevant.

Volker Siegel
  • 3,192
  • 4
  • 18
  • 31
  • 2
    I think the malicious intent sentence at the end needs to go. That is the bit that is going to require mind reading, because they're not going to say that. – Jontia Oct 09 '19 at 15:11
  • 3
    @Jontia The malicious intentions could be known before, or otherwise obvious, so they do not need to say it. Also, there are intentions that are not seen as malicious by the person, but can be seen so for good reasons. Making a lot of money from it is not malicious. But betting on stock changes may seem more malicious. – Volker Siegel Oct 09 '19 at 15:18
  • 10
    If you're asking if any politicians are saying they want a no-deal Brexit, then that's something objectively answerable but also a very trivial question. If you're asking if any politicians are saying they want a no-deal Brexit but actually don't want it, or vice versa, then we can really only speculate about internal motivations. – Giter Oct 09 '19 at 15:19
  • @divibisan I made the sentence you removed a less prominent side note. I see it as a relevant point, but I understand that it was too prominent because it was the last sentence and separated. – Volker Siegel Oct 09 '19 at 15:25
  • 5
    How do we know who "honestly" supports it? Politicians lie every single day. – JonathanReez Oct 09 '19 at 16:45
  • 4
    @Jontia: The malicious intent is well documented in the cases of a number of Brexiters (Rees-Mogg and Farage in particular). – Denis de Bernardy Oct 09 '19 at 16:58
  • @JJJ I have reverted your change because it changed the meaning of the title significantly. The word "honest" is central to the question. It is not about whether someone says he supports it, but whether somebody has the actual intention. – Volker Siegel Oct 09 '19 at 18:13
  • I don't know why it seems so hard for you to believe that anyone can honestly believe that a no-deal Brexit is a good idea... especially as a German. Just pan back some 90 years... Voting/supporting Hitler in power seemed such a good idea back then. – the gods from engineering Oct 09 '19 at 19:53
  • @Fizz That is a good point indeed. What's special here is the sudden large change. – Volker Siegel Oct 09 '19 at 19:54
  • They have been making serious preparations for almost two years now. To say there have been none is simply false. – Weckar E. Oct 10 '19 at 07:24
  • @WeckarE That is true, of course. But there are many changes that can not be simplified by preparation. An others with preparation, but possibly no to the full extent needed for no deal. For example, companies need to be prepared for online registration for exports to pass the border, but more than half are not prepared for it. The large are, alternative handling at the border takes more time and makes the border waiting line longer. – Volker Siegel Oct 10 '19 at 07:44
  • You seem to be assuming that the options on the table are No deal or Stay in the EU. However the options are No Deal, Deal (at some point) or Stay in the EU. There are many politicians who prefer No Deal to Staying in the EU, but No Deal vs A Good Deal (definitions of this vary) is a much more nuanced question. – Phil Oct 10 '19 at 07:44
  • @Phil No, I assume there are many other options, but I wonder about the specific one, No Deal. – Volker Siegel Oct 10 '19 at 07:46
  • 2
    @VolkerSiegel Do you consider the opinion 'I would rather a Deal, but I'll take No Deal' as wanting No Deal? – Phil Oct 10 '19 at 07:48
  • 1
    @Phil Good point. I would see it as "I can accept No Deal as backup" as opposed to "I can accept Remain as backup". It is at least closely related and interesting, but not "wanting No Deal". That is related to the number of other options and the psychology of choice. – Volker Siegel Oct 10 '19 at 07:55
  • @VolkerSiegel I would consider adding this clarification to your question. I was going to answer that 299 MPs voted against the Benn Act (to force a request for extension in case of No Deal) who clearly think that it is a preference. But this is not what you are looking for. – Phil Oct 10 '19 at 08:05
  • @Phil I edited in the way that it matches your original interpretation. The core of the question is whether somebody accepts No Deal, and this acceptance could be in the backup case, you are right. (A minor difference is that one would spend less time and energy to understand a secondary option, but it's still meaningful) – Volker Siegel Oct 10 '19 at 08:24
  • 1
    Your views are so one sided that you can't even fathom why Brits would want a no deal. You should educate yourself more on politics and try reading a more diverse source of news. – Pablo Oct 10 '19 at 11:36
  • @Pablo I think my views are not relevant here, except for one point: The assumption that Do Deal would lead to severe problems, on a purely technical level. I am appropriately educated regarding the technical aspects. Political effects will exist also, but I completely ignore them. For example, how problems would be handled - which approach of solving is, is political. – Volker Siegel Oct 10 '19 at 11:44
  • 1
    " that it is bad in an objective way." How can you form an objective opinion about a subjective topic? – NPSF3000 Oct 10 '19 at 13:43
  • @NPSF3000 You mean the effects that I count as negative may be seen as positive by somebody else? Like if no flowers are available because they can not be delivered in time from the Netherlands, that may be seen as good, because it is not a good thing to waste resources on transporting and producing perishable plants or so? Or in what way subjective? – Volker Siegel Oct 10 '19 at 14:04
  • @volkersiegel not just that, but it also impact which aspects people consider, what they think the result will be and how they weight these factors. For example not getting Netherlands flowers may increase costs and reduce quality by person A. Person B may suggest it'll increase the britishness of flowers (a quality they value) and redirect money into local economy. Person C might not even care about flowers. There is no objectively true viewpoint here, just different subjective perspectives. – NPSF3000 Oct 10 '19 at 15:34
  • 2
    I think a better question would have been why some of the electorate want a no deal. Seeing as negotiations have largely led to nothing I'd count myself in that camp. I think you haven't considered the fact that not everything is about economics. People have principles too you know, regardless of what you may think about them. I know many people who have said they'd rather be a bit poorer if it meant leaving the EU. – Lee Oct 11 '19 at 08:41
  • Maybe too general of an answer, but for every event there is always a profit angle. Any politician aligned with that profit angle (who prioritizes it over other considerations) would want the event to occur. For example, if the consequence of Brexit is lowered international trading, British manufacturers will profit. If the consequence is improved international trading, British importers will profit. Any politician aligned to these groups (or expecting to garner their political support indirectly) would be incentivized to make it happen. – Flater Oct 11 '19 at 08:52
  • It's easier to sack a tanking economy (see how Boris is already giving his friends lucrative deals) and loosening up tax regulations (note how they all have trust funds), and it's easier for right-wing parties to stay in power in a tanking economy, since recession usually comes with an uprise of nationalism, xenophobia, and other ideas associated with right-wing parties, and of course, the system in the UK is crap, and proving it by crashing the country is a great way to force a reorganisation of the structure by those who are in power (read: Boris/Cummings, if he gets his way). – Ink blot Oct 11 '19 at 16:38
  • I don't think people quite realise what "no deal" actually is - there's extensive planning already gone in for the March deadline, industries and government bodies have produced arrangements to cater for a "no formal deal" outcome - perhaps we could bundle them all up and call them a deal. Would that then be a deal or a no deal result?! – gbjbaanb Oct 11 '19 at 17:45
  • "Are there participants expecting No Deal has a better outcome than remaining in the EU?" Why are you comparing "no deal" to "remain" rather than "no deal" to "deal"? The country voted "leave". Unless there's a second referendum then remaining is no longer an option. – Pharap Oct 12 '19 at 05:11
  • @Pharap While it is not enough to draw strict conclusions, my assumption was as follows: There is a negotiated deal. It has been rejected multiple times - until it was no longer allowed to be voted on during the same parliamentary session. The beginning of a new session is not to be expected noon enough to make use of that. So the UK needs to negotiate a different deal. I do not expect the EU to make any concessions. They are good in negotiating. They are not elected negotiators, they are chosen based on skill, possibly the best of all EU nations. Not much change to be expected. – Volker Siegel Oct 12 '19 at 05:22
  • @VolkerSiegel So you're essentially saying you didn't compare "no deal" with "deal" because you believe a "deal" is now effectively impossible? If so that would answer why you didn't compare to "deal", but not why you're comparing with "remaining". – Pharap Oct 12 '19 at 05:30
  • 1
    @Pharap Looking at it again, I found what's wrong: My intention was to compare No Deal to any other option, but I wrote a specific comparison, which you are right to point out. I fix it to make it independent of possible bias on other options, as it should be. Thanks. – Volker Siegel Oct 12 '19 at 05:39
  • "Any politician" where? In the UK? In the EU? In the world? – dan04 Oct 14 '19 at 01:30
  • 1
    @dan04 That's a good point. I thought about UK. But globally, it's also interesting. The implications it would be potentially different, but just as interesting. I had assumed that it must be of advantage for at least a few on the other side of the negotiation - but that's not clear at all. I am not sure there is anybody in the EU who would prefer No Deal, except for speculation on currency or stocks. I think outside the EU, there may be countries expecting advantages from changes in power balances. – Volker Siegel Oct 14 '19 at 04:21

9 Answers9

61

There are various reasons to prefer an exit without a deal. They can be broadly divided into ideological reasons, and pragmatic reasons.

Pragmatic Reasons

It is possible to make money from the decline of an economy. By shorting sterling and shares in UK businesses, some people could enrich themselves. There are also those who seek to use the divergence from European standards to roll back the rights and protections of workers, and to produce goods more cheaply. They are betting that the damage done by a no deal brexit would be less than the opportunities created by this divergence in standards and regulation. Some people also believe (correctly or incorrectly) that Britain will be in a better negotiating position once it has left the EU, so they support a sort of "no deal for now". In the same vein, some people simply think the economic damage is overstated, and that Britain will flourish under such conditions.

Ideological Reasons

There is a contingent in the UK that sincerely believes that, given the result of the 2016 referendum, the country has a moral obligation to leave the EU as soon as possible. If one also believes that staying in the single market or customs union wouldn't really be leaving, and that any potential deal which divides the UK in any way is unacceptable, there are really no options other than leaving without a deal. Their belief really is that despite the economic damage, to preserve faith in democracy and the Union, we must leave.

Of course, all these reasons can be mixed and matched and used to justify one another - but it is certain there are both malicious and benign reasons to support this position. It is therefore difficult to say with any certainty whether any of the politicians advocating for this course of action (such as Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and many others) have malicious intentions. One can certainly accuse them of that, but they have many good justifications with which to defend themselves, and without reading their minds, we cannot say whether they are telling the truth. What we do have are their public statements, which naturally skew toward the arguments that are politically acceptable.

CoedRhyfelwr
  • 5,826
  • 2
  • 25
  • 46
  • 9
    The point that it is the strictly democratic thing to do is interesting. – Volker Siegel Oct 09 '19 at 14:36
  • 12
    I'd call it nonsense rather than interesting, but in any case this while laying out some reasons why someone may want no-deal it doesn't actually name any names, which was the question. – Jontia Oct 09 '19 at 14:45
  • 54
    @Jontia in British English, "interesting" and "nonsense" are often synonyms. – alephzero Oct 09 '19 at 23:06
  • 19
    The ideologue position is refuted by the fact the UK is a representative democracy, not an absolute democracy - in a representative democracy it can be argued that it's more immoral to let popular sentiment get ahead of reason and the country's best interests - especially when that popular sentiment wasn't a sustained and qualified majority opinion. – Dai Oct 10 '19 at 01:45
  • 8
    "Interesting" as in "may you live in interesting times." – Draco18s no longer trusts SE Oct 10 '19 at 02:06
  • 4
    @Dai I agree with you and that's my interpretation of the situation - but it's disingenuous to claim that somebody couldn't sincerely and legitimately believe that given we dabbled in direct democracy with the referendum, we now had a moral obligation to follow through with that. – CoedRhyfelwr Oct 10 '19 at 07:40
  • 5
    @Dai No it isn't, because it allows a politician to say they believe *is* in the country's best interests. This freedom lets moral politicians ignore public support for short-term or uninformed damaging options, such as reinstating the death penalty after a bad murder - but it also lets politicians choose to follow their own ideological agenda to the clear and immoral detriment of their constituency and the country. – Graham Oct 10 '19 at 07:52
  • @Graham The latter sounds an awful lot like a certain current PM... –  Oct 10 '19 at 10:15
  • 2
    @DoctorPenguin It sounds very like every member of the ERG group, for sure. For a certain current PM though, I'm not sure it's a safe assumption to say there's an ideological agenda beyond "I deserve power". – Graham Oct 10 '19 at 10:33
  • Spot on for the UK, but I guess you should clarify that it only applies to one side of the coin. – Diego Sánchez Oct 10 '19 at 10:52
  • 2
    The more we see threats of riots in the streets if Brexit doesn't happen, the more I believe that the 2016 referendum was in fact ochlocratic, rather than democratic. – Evil Dog Pie Oct 10 '19 at 12:29
  • @alephzero The same concept exists in American English but requires an inflection shift not present in text communication. – Krupip Oct 10 '19 at 14:10
  • 1
    @EvilDogPie If Brexit didn't happen it would set a rather nasty precedent - the government would effectively be doing the opposite of the outcome of a public vote. The government is there to enact the will of the people, not to tell the people that they are wrong and it knows better than they do. – Pharap Oct 12 '19 at 06:55
  • @Pharap I agree with your first sentence, but the second is incorrect. The government is there to represent the people and to do what is in their best interest regardless of what the people think. The referendum was a very poor means of gauging the public mood on a poorly understood subject and as such was neither democratic nor good government. – Evil Dog Pie Oct 14 '19 at 08:53
  • 1
    @EvilDogPie I'll concede that for the day-to-day legislation it would be impractical for the government to ask everyone's opinion as would be the case in a direct democracy, but even in a representative democracy, the government should be aiming to follow the will of the people, especially when it has actually asked the people's opinion on such an important issue. How exactly was the vote not democratic? It was enacted much the same as any general election would be - there was campaigning, people made their decision and then they voted. – Pharap Oct 15 '19 at 18:28
  • @Pharap At the time it was held it was democratic. But there appears to be a significant number of people screaming "the will of the people" and threating civil disobedience and violence against MPs that looks suspiciously like 'mob rule' (ochlocracy). A second, confirmatory referendum would also be democratic, particularly considering the apparent swing towards remain, in both polling and demographic changes. – Evil Dog Pie Oct 16 '19 at 11:47
36

Nigel Farage wants a no-deal exit. Though he's now calling it a clean break.

He tweeted: “No British Government could ever accept Germany telling us that part of the UK has to stay in the EU.

“The choice now is clear: A clean break Brexit, or stay in a new militarised empire.

“Time to choose freedom.”

Presumably the name change is to avoid having to discuss no-deal documents such as Operation Yellowhammer

Community
  • 1
Jontia
  • 24,192
  • 4
  • 94
  • 120
25

Yes, President Trump of the United States.

Trump stating he wants to make a trade deal

Trump has previously said in an interview with Piers Morgan (before the first extension):

So we are going to make a deal with the UK, that will be great. As you know, somewhat restricted. Because of Brexit you have a two year restriction. And when that restriction is up we're going to be your great trading partner. It's a tough restriction to have. You know for a couple of years, you have very strong lack of being able to do things.

Why a trade deal implies leaving the EU customs union

While Trump didn't mention no-deal specifically here, it's implied that the UK would be able to make trade deals which it is not the case when the UK takes on the EU's common external tariff. From the Institute of Government:

Accepting the EU’s common external tariff would also constrain the UK’s ability to strike new trade deals and require the UK to comply with substantial numbers of EU products regulations.

Evidence that President Trump knows (negotiating) a deal with the EU may hinder the UK's ability to negotiate its own FTAs

From Politico's Trump backs no-deal Brexit:

Trump also criticized the deal negotiated with the EU, particularly the post-Brexit transition period during which the U.K. would not be able to strike its own trade deals.

“One of the things that was, I think, very bad is to have this two-year moratorium on trade. That is terrible. That is a tremendous penalty," he said. “We have the potential to be an incredible trade partner with the U.K. We’re doing relatively little compared to what we could be doing with U.K. ... I think much bigger than European Union.”

A direct endorsement of walking away when "they don’t get what they want"

From Politico's Trump backs no-deal Brexit:

"If they don’t get what they want, I would walk away,” Trump told Britain's Sunday Times ahead of his state visit to the U.K., which begins on Monday. “Yes, I would walk away. If you don’t get the deal you want, if you don’t get a fair deal, then you walk away.”

Based on statements by former National Security Advisor Bolton

It has been pointed out that Bolton has left his function in the Trump administration. The way in which Bolton left is disputed, but it's clear that it was due to differences in foreign policy views. Nevertheless, I am keeping this statement in as there has been no specific rebuke by the administation on this policy statement and Bolton's leaving wasn't directly after the statement was made.

According to Politico's US would ‘enthusiastically’ back no-deal Brexit, Trump envoy says:

America would "enthusiastically" support a no-deal Brexit, U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton said on Monday during a visit to London.

“If that’s the decision of the British government, we will support it enthusiastically, and that’s what I’m trying to convey," Bolton told reporters on the first day of his two-day visit to the British capital, according to the Guardian. "We’re with you, we’re with you."

He said the U.S. would consider striking sector-specific deals ahead of a full-scale trade pact.

“The ultimate end result is a comprehensive trade agreement covering all trading goods and services,” Bolton said. “But to get to that you could do it sector by sector, and you can do it in a modular fashion. In other words, you can carve out some areas where it might be possible to reach a bilateral agreement very quickly, very straightforwardly."

Bolton also took aim at Brussels, saying: “The fashion in the European Union is when the people vote the wrong way from the way the elites want to go, is to make the peasants vote again and again until they get it right. There was a vote — everyone knew what the issues were. It is hard to imagine that anyone in this country did not know what was at stake. The result is the way it was. That’s democracy.”

Community
  • 1
JJJ
  • 39,094
  • 10
  • 121
  • 182
  • John Bolton no longer has that position, due to disagreements over Foreign Policy with Trump. For that reason, I don't think you can take a statement of his to be the opinion of Trump. And on a general note, past behavior of this administration strongly indicates you can't take a statement from anyone else in it to be the opinion of Trump either. – T.E.D. Oct 11 '19 at 03:47
  • 1
    @T.E.D. he was a high ranking official in the Trump Administration picked by Trump. He only left that position about a month later so it would be very weird if his leaving the position was over this statement. After all, by that logic we could send most Amercan officials representing the US back home as they may well be fired at some point. Well except maybe Ben Carson, I think he's one of the few still in his original position but I don't think he talks about foreign policy, alas. – JJJ Oct 11 '19 at 06:29
  • 1
    His departure was over disagreements over Foreign policy in general. Trump himself was actually using the fact that he and Bolton disagreed with foreign leaders in negotiations. So it was publicly clear that the two weren't on the same page. And yes, that is "very weird", but little has been normal about this administration. – T.E.D. Oct 11 '19 at 13:44
  • 1
    @T.E.D. I take your point, I'll clarify the dispute (but keep it in as it's still an American representative serving at the pleasure of the president making those statements without being fired directly after and without the president or his administration distancing themselves for the statements made at this particular instance). I will also try to see if I can support the point further by editing in quotes from the president directly, which I think are out there. – JJJ Oct 11 '19 at 13:54
  • @T.E.D. I updated my reasoning a bit. Please feel free to let me know if you think it's still too presumptive of President Trump's reasoning. – JJJ Oct 11 '19 at 14:21
  • Hmmm. Yeah, I guess I support it presented this way, as its clear (particularly by putting it last) that the statement isn't inconsistent with what Trump himself had been saying. I'd still argue that nobody in this administration can be taken as speaking for Trump but Trump, but since its saying the same thing, and is no longer listed first, its probably OK. – T.E.D. Oct 11 '19 at 14:27
  • @T.E.D. I understand that reasoning. If we're going to be nitpicking and say contradictory statements are evidence of disagreement in policy then Trump's statements may not even reflect Trump's thinking. After all, often he makes multiple contradictory statements depending on who he's talking to and who he's been talking to before. That it's not unique to Trump, but with other politicians the time in between contradictory statements seems longer (e.g. depending on who's in power or after a change of opinion over a longer period of reflection). – JJJ Oct 11 '19 at 14:37
  • 1
    That's a point I've thought over as well. As people on Twitter will point out daily, even a Trump opinion statement pretty much needs a freshness date attached to it (search "There's always a tweet"). And he seems to have an appalling propensity to parrot the position of the last world leader he talked to on the phone. Still, it seems reasonable to attempt to hold him to his last stated opinion, until he decides to change it. – T.E.D. Oct 11 '19 at 15:21
20

Leaving aside those who might actually believe no-deal Brexit would not be bad in terms of economics, support from the rest can probably best be summarized by Boris Johnson's two words "fuck business".

People make all sorts of trade-offs. The BBC had a fairly long video segment on a small business owner (in the fishing export industry) who voted for Brexit but against her direct economic interest. When the segment was filmed she was still not ready with all the paperwork needed to trade with the EU after Brexit, and there were doubts she would even qualify under the new rules. (She had a single trailer.) Nevertheless, she said she did not regret her vote saying it was for her children's future, or something like that. (Alas I cannot find the link again; too much Brexit material on the BBC.)

Politicians who stand to gain popularity (with some segments of the population of course, not with all) from having achieved Brexit probably have an even easier job deciding than those business owners.

the gods from engineering
  • 158,594
  • 27
  • 390
  • 806
  • 7
    While CoedRhyfelwr's answer is probably also correct, I believe this is the primary answer. To put it another way, the "better outcome" simply cannot be measured in financial terms. – StackOverthrow Oct 10 '19 at 22:57
  • Even those sacred fishermen beloved by Leavers, a lot of them are indeed leavers (and feel mostly French fishermen are stealing 'their' crops; plus the bycatch/discarding rules etc etc), but a lot of them are remainers (for example the shellfish catchers who export all to Spain). – user3445853 Oct 11 '19 at 20:38
12

I think Boris Johnson definitely wants a No Deal Brexit:

this is the right way to release economic potential of the whole country.

Also, for example, Sir Bill Cash may also think so.

In fact, there is definitely some political power, and, then, some amount of people, in the UK, who prefer No Deal Brexit. When voting on a referendum, I think, that, at least, some of those, who vote for the Brexit, definitely wanted a no-deal (or UK-formed-EU-accepted deal, which is, in fact, the same)

Machavity
  • 48,310
  • 11
  • 131
  • 209
user2501323
  • 11,825
  • 4
  • 44
  • 91
5

It makes sense that a participant in the negotiations of the kind of Brexit states he wants No Deal Brexit for strategic reasons as part of the negotiation.

As I understand it, many proponents of Brexit believe that the UK would be better off outside of the EU and that the UK would be able to negotiate an agreement which is far more politically acceptable (to the conservatives) without the free movement of people.

Furthermore, many conservatives have stated that they believe that Brexit will hurt the EU far more than it will hurt the UK and that the EU will negotiate something more politically acceptable to the conservatives at the last minute.

Finally, my suspicion is that many of these last minute negotiations are intended to make it appear that the leavers are the "reasonable ones" while making the EU seem like the "bad guys".

Note: I'm using a lower case "c" to distinguish the people from the political party (which has an upper case "C").

Tangurena
  • 855
  • 6
  • 9
  • 6
    "the EU will negotiate something more politically acceptable to the conservatives at the last minute" - well, that didn't happen back when "the last minute" was April 29th... – F1Krazy Oct 09 '19 at 16:50
  • 2
    The first paragraph is missing a word. A far more politically acceptable without free movement of people. – Jontia Oct 09 '19 at 18:42
  • Real (as in realpolitik) negotiations never start until after a decision has committed to by both sides. – alephzero Oct 09 '19 at 23:10
  • 1
    @Jontia , I edited it to fix the missing bit. – Tangurena Oct 10 '19 at 00:07
4

There were 300 MPs who voted against the Benn Act which forces the PM to seek an extension if it is looking like the UK is going to leave with No Deal. You can assume that this means they see No Deal as either their preferred option, or an acceptable back up when a deal is not reached.

You can read the debate transcripts here but I believe the arguments have already been summarised in other answers.

JJJ
  • 39,094
  • 10
  • 121
  • 182
Phil
  • 340
  • 1
  • 9
  • 7
    No, you can't assume that. You can only assume that they are loyal to the whip. The way party politics works in the UK means that individual votes are a poor guide to the actual opinions of the MPs voting. – Jack Aidley Oct 10 '19 at 10:45
  • 3
    Also, many MPs have expressed the (badly wrong) view that the threat of No Deal is necessary in order to get their desired deal. – Jack Aidley Oct 10 '19 at 10:45
  • Whether they came to the conclusion through a belief that it is in the country's interests, or just from a self serving 'I want to keep my job' perspective, this vote is a public declaration by those individual MPs that they believe that the PM does not need to take action to avoid a No Deal Brexit. – Phil Oct 10 '19 at 11:13
  • Equally, Boris Johnson felt the need to assuage the fears of many of those 300 MPs by insisting that 'No Deal' would not be a manifesto pledge in the next Election: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/09/tory-mps-react-with-fury-to-talk-of-no-deal-brexit-manifesto-promise – DaveMongoose Oct 10 '19 at 16:52
  • It can also be used as a negotiation tactic to push things though faster, even if no one wanted no deal. – Charles Oct 11 '19 at 13:55
4

This question seems to be asking for a "who", and the answer to that is relatively straightforward, go and look at the Brexit Party website, and the profiles and voting records of European Research Group (ERG) members.

Established by Catherine Blaiklock, the Brexit Party campaigns for British withdrawal from the European Union (EU) without a deal in order for the UK to trade on World Trade Organization (WTO) terms, which it describes as "a clean-break Brexit".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit_Party

German public international broadcaster Deutsche Welle reported that "The European Research Group is a lobbying entity pushing for a no-nonsense, hard Brexit."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Research_Group#Modern_era,_2016-present

divibisan
  • 25,926
  • 6
  • 110
  • 135
Rinky Stingpiece
  • 163
  • 6
2

A lot of eastern-EU leaders actually want their people back from UK. A hard brexit will make the impossible task a bit easier.

fraxinus
  • 6,100
  • 11
  • 31
  • 10
    Welcome to Politics.SE! Could you provide some sources to back up your point? I'm sure I've read articles about the impact that mass emigration to the UK has had on Eastern Europe, but I haven't heard anything about Eastern European leaders believing a hard Brexit would reverse that. – F1Krazy Oct 10 '19 at 14:35
  • 1
    I can't see it making it much easier, considering the UK government has said EU nationals have to just re-apply for residency. – Lee Oct 11 '19 at 08:39
  • 2
    @gerrit there is some truth to it, however, it doesn't go into enough detail to answer the question. When I say truth, I think of the letter from the Polish ambassador urging Poles in the UK to consider moving back. – JJJ Oct 11 '19 at 14:24
  • 3
    @gerrit the Lithuanian government was voted into power on (partly) an anti-emigration policy. Most East European countries are suffering from a dramatic exodus of workers. – gbjbaanb Oct 11 '19 at 17:42
  • 1
    Good to see a non-Britsh (or Trump) perspective. But this really does need fleshing out. The two articles in the comments are useful. Though both positions would probably apply under a deal too. UK exiting Freedom of Movement should stem the outward flows, if not necessarily reverse them. – Jontia Oct 12 '19 at 15:28