However, a second referendum can be between three clear options: EU's offer, no-deal, or remain. — boethius

The referendum is already contaminated by the results of the first thereby unnecessarily restricting the offered options. Remain still doesn't in any way address the issues people want to vote on, whereas both leave options do to a certain extent. See my previous example with five possible options to give you an idea. So it will still be issue voting and the only reason remain could win is because the leave vote would be fractured as the issues people would vote for are captured by both leave options.

that the UK can't negotiate a better arrangement with the EU once they leave. — Hanover

This doesn't make sense if you really think about it. Why would the EU offer a better deal to non-member States? It's not going to happen barring some full scale disintegration of the EU.Also good luck with finding an alternative market as developed with similar purchasing power and the size of the EU. So they'll have GDP growth at some point again but the GDP reduction for the next 2 to 5 years will be real (and a permanent loss compared to remaining).

How do you know it would be permanent? The UK imports a hefty load from the EU, so it's not like they have no power to negotiate a nice deal. And there are other markets. — frank

The Dutch stand to lose 4.7% of GDP because of Brexit. We still closed ranks as part of the EU because the value of the EU is not only economic. There isn't a nice deal available as it would undermine the EU if not being part of it doesn't make you significantly worse off than being in it.

How do you know it would be permanent? — frank

That was a bad choice of words on my part. I meant the reduction will happen and you can't win it back, it's like running a 400 m race having to run 100 m extra compared to the rest of the track.

I was looking for laws for what to do with the outcome of a referendum. Per Benkei, there aren't any.

With the disclaimer that I'm not bwiddish but I'm certain that there's no bill passed dealing with it.

The referendum is already contaminated by the results of the first thereby unnecessarily restricting the offered options. Remain still doesn't in any way address the issues people want to vote on, whereas both leave options do to a certain extent. See my previous example with five possible options to give you an idea. So it will still be issue voting and the only reason remain could win is because the leave vote would be fractured as the issues people would vote for are captured by both leave options. — Benkei

I mentioned three clear options to contrast with the first clear vs unclear referendum. I didn't mean to exclude the potential for even more options. Ranked choice seems to already deal with vote splitting. Do you think this wouldn't work for some reason, or are you against ranked choice in principle?

However, I completely agree with your points on why a no-deal Brexit (and Brexit to begin with) is a terrible choice.

From what I understand of the EU-May deal, it's basically "stay in the EU with a few ornamental changes, and have 80 years to activate the real Brexit". And I assume the politicians are in agreement that they won't let a no-deal Brexit happen, either calling an referendum or proceeding, as you suggest, of a parliament vote against the deal and then vote to remain in the EU (though I just don't see how that's politically palatable, so I assume they'll go with referendum or then accept May's deal).

edit: even now I can't bring myself to believe UK politicians are foolish enough to go no-deal ... but they've been proving me wrong so far ...

The Dutch stand to lose 4.7% of GDP because of Brexit. We still closed ranks as part of the EU because the value of the EU is not only economic. There isn't a nice deal available as it would undermine the EU if not being part of it doesn't make you significantly worse off than being in it. — Benkei

I think a lot of UK commentators, and certainly more voters, don't quite get these two critical parts.

A "good deal for the UK" is an existential threat to the EU, the only options are crashing out (so painful no other country would try it) or then functionally staying in the EU but now with no say (no other country would see the point). The UK is big but not big enough to have leverage over the EU to make existential concessions.

And even with these two option of crash-out or basically stay in the EU, Brexit could still cause a cascade of events that lead to the break up of the EU.

The EU is both a successful peace mission and a failed neoliberal-corporatist experiment (with undertones of NATO encroachment to Russia's border and playing second fiddle to disastrous US militarism in the middle east) with these bills now coming due. It's tempting to walk away from the failure parts, I do sympathize with the Brexiters, but on a global scale the EU can anchor a peaceful re-ordering during the US-China inversion. Without the EU, most countries will have no choice but to switch from US to Chinese patronage, and if we now view the US's promotion of democracy during tenure as world super power as wanting we will give it a stellar rating compared to what we will see with unchecked Chinese geopolitical influence (especially once they start to really need those east-Asian and African and South-American resources to maintain internal stability).

This figure has gained some interest as of late, making some question who's really gaining an advantage from the centralized Euro. I realize that the UK isn't one suffering, but the German success is an interesting phenomenon. — Hanover

You are correct. The real winner of the Eurozone is naturally Germany.

You see, during the old times when countries had their separate currencies, the old trick was to devalue your currency and hence get your export industry back to being competitive for a while ...until inflation kicked in. Once all these countries that joined the eurozone couldn't resort to this gimmick as there was a single currency, the masters in competitiveness, the German export industry, were the ones being even more the winners. But heck, can you name some awesome Greek company making some well known industrial products like Volkswagen, Daimler Ag or Siemens etc? Nope.

The EU is both a successful peace mission and a failed neoliberal-corporatist experiment (with undertones of NATO encroachment to Russia's border and playing second fiddle to disastrous US militarism in the middle east) with these bills now coming due. It's tempting to walk away from the failure parts, I do sympathize with the Brexiters, but on a global scale the EU can anchor a peaceful re-ordering during the US-China inversion. — boethius

The EU was simply an awesome idea as an union for commerce. It's hideous as a vehicle for political union especially if the objective is some kind of US of Europe. I think the worst threat to the EU are the idiots in charge that are trying to make it into a tight political federation.

The EU was simply an awesome idea as an union for commerce. It's hideous as a vehicle for political union especially if the objective is some kind of US of Europe. I think the worst threat to the EU are the idiots in charge that are trying to make it into a tight political federation. — ssu

The tighter federation is a failure of the corporatist forces, not the peace building I am referring to. The goal of the EU constitution was basically so corporations can overrule local governments, which is anti-democratic and anti-peace. But, the EU constitution didn't pass precisely because the EU is not a federation where a central bureaucracy can impose their will on local structures.

However, in terms of promoting dialogue and cooperation between nations, and more importantly creating an economic and diplomatic block to implement shared values on the global stage, the EU is a big success.

The EU has far more impact on global affairs than the sum of all the individuals countries would have separately, and I would argue this influence is far more positive than what would otherwise occur. EU development aid policies, inter-governmental cooperation, a block of "power" that does have leverage visi-a-vis other great powers, as well as trade relations, has a massive affect on global politics. The EU's policies promote democracy and human rights in all sorts of ways, and the EU is also a template and example for peaceful close intergovernmental relations.

Of course plenty of criticism of the EU is valid on many levels, and it's possible (though I think now very unlikely) the EU doubles down on corporatist police-state trajectory, but if the EU were to breakup I find it exceedingly likely China and the fully developed distopian police state Chinese model will start to fill in all the cracks at the global level. China has zero interest in promoting democracy and human rights, does not serve as a democratic model, and (absent the EU as an alternative economic partner) China will be able to provide vassal states both economic development, protection and their social control technology (which will become more and more refined).

These geo-political considerations need to then be put in the context of ecological disruptions and resource crisis. The EU is in my view our likeliest chance to solve our ecological problems, it is a large enough trading block to implement large policy initiatives.

Of course, if climate change is a hoax, if China's a success case of how capitalism can thrive without democracy, if massive famines and resource wars aren't "our problem", then of course the EU is a silly thing. Not to say that you personally have such opinions, but I wish here to highlight that the EU is more than just commerce for people who see it as a force for peace, human rights and reasoned global policy initiatives (compared to it not existing at all), and despite a lot problems to fix and a hard road to help build and promote democracies elsewhere and also start solving the ecological crisis, still a good bet and worth contributing too.

Edit: So for us EU proponents in the above sense, Brexit is not simply "will Britain GDP do better within or outside the EU", but very potentially a start of a process that breaks up the EU; the UK is a big piece and leaving has lot's of political consequences, many unforeseeable.

I mentioned three clear options to contrast with the first clear vs unclear referendum. I didn't mean to exclude the potential for even more options. Ranked choice seems to already deal with vote splitting. Do you think this wouldn't work for some reason, or are you against ranked choice in principle? — boethius

I think UK politicians will feel compelled to recognise the results of the first referendum and don't think that realistically their thinking will have evolved or will evolve in the time left that it would lead to a sensible referendum. So it seems politically impossible. Ignoring that I'd think it would be good to have a referendum although I'm still not sure if it is already ready for one considering the lack of detailed analyses of various options.

Edit: So for us EU proponents in the above sense, Brexit is not simply "will Britain GDP do better within or outside the EU", but very potentially a start of a process that breaks up the EU; the UK is a big piece and leaving has lot's of political consequences, many unforeseeable. — boethius

It's very interesting you say that, and thanks for the general analysis too. The suspicion I have is that it is the UK that will break up, with N. Ireland (eventually) federating with the South, and Scotland going independent and seeking to rejoin the EU. But we agree that it is divisive, perhaps it is a mutual myopia, or perhaps both will happen ...

Someone gave a great summary of what is happening globally, that there is a growing attraction to and rise of "Strong Leaders", who set about dismantling the institutions that were set up after WW2 to protect us from the repetition of "Strong Leaders" that brought us to that war. Well at least no one can accuse the UK of having a Strong Leader, though many wish for one. :roll:

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/

Worth a look if you have time, or if you haven't try the Guardian's pre-digested bombshell - sounds appropriately messy and uncomfortable.

The EU has far more impact on global affairs than the sum of all the individuals countries would have separately, and I would argue this influence is far more positive than what would otherwise occur. — boethius

This is true. For example, this is why Russia is so against the EU and would be extremely happy if it dissolved. Any European country alone isn't at all superior to Russia. And smaller countries (just like my own) wouldn't dare to protest against the annexations of Russia with sanctions if not part of a bigger community.

When you look at geopolitics in Europe with a longer view focus, one can see an obvious thing that is lacking especially in Eastern Europe, and that is the void that has been let after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In a way the EU has replaced the old power politics in this area and has been able to sweep aside old tensions. The other organization that has also eased tensions between European countries has been naturally NATO and membership in the mutual defence organization.

Just to give one example is to look where Hungarians are a majority:

Sure, all else being equal, promising to more people adds weight to the promise. However, I was aware that the referendum involved a lot of people and I don't see how this changes any of the reasoning's for a second referendum I posit as defendable. Again maybe not "true" arguments, just of a sound and reasonable structure following likely agreeable ethical principles to most UK residents. — boethius

I was just raising a counter point. It would only change the arguments that you presented if you were to accept that it's reason enough to reach a different conclusion.

Ok, we are in agreement here, but (at least in the post I was responding to) your argument was it's simple ethics that promises should be kept; if you make a bold statement like this you should expect to be challenged. — boethius

That's a misreading. That's not at all what I meant. I meant that, despite the complexities involved in discussions about Brexit, some of it can be boiled down to some key ethical issues of a more general nature, that we're all familiar with, such as whether a promise should be kept, and under what circumstances would it be justified to break one.

And no, I never said that promises should be kept without qualification, and that's certainly not what I meant to suggest. I wouldn't make such a claim.

My main point is there's no clear constitutional or political or ethical or "fairness" principle that somehow excludes a second referendum. — boethius

Sure there is, and lots of people would make that argument. I'm not even a Brexiteer, at least in the fullest sense, since I voted to remain. Try speaking to those on the other side of that vote. I guarantee you, you will find that lots of them will be of the opinion that a second referendum would be wrong and/or unfair, and should therefore not be permitted, at least not any time soon.

If you agree that in principle a second referendum would be justifiable with "sufficient changes" or "sufficient evidence of campaign fraud" or "sufficient changes to the makeup of parliament that they need not feel bound by poor decisions of passed leadership", then we are in agreement in principle. — boethius

I've argued against some of those reasons. As I've said, the only circumstances in which I would accept a second referendum as a viable option is as a last resort if we were headed straight for a no deal Brexit.

As for the "promise of binding", I do not feel this is a simple defense. For instance, what do we mean by "binding"? That article 50 would be triggered? Well, that's already done so "promise fulfilled", what do we do now that a deal is on the table: consult the people once again. — boethius

The referendum results being treated as binding would mean that the government does everything in their power to follow through on them, i.e leave. It wouldn't just mean triggering article 50, because they have the power to revoke it. The promise wouldn't be fulfilled if the government did anything that risked undermining or effectively invalidating the results, like holding a second referendum.

And bypassing our representatives in parliament to consult the people directly over the current deal or the final deal isn't the only option or necessarily the best.

From what I understand the May-EU proposed agreement is the "final offer" as far as the EU is concerned, so it seems to be there's something to vote on. — boethius

The scare quotes are appropriate. We can't know whether it truly is the final offer until the last minute. Both sides could be bluffing to some extent in order to put pressure on the other side. The media has today reported on new government plans for a no deal scenario, which could also be a tactical move to some degree.

A second referendum would not render the first meaningless. — boethius

It would render it meaningless fundamentally, even if not absolutely, i.e. in every respect.

In any complex planning process it's very normal critical things come up for votes several times; so it's fairly natural that there's a vote to start a process and then the same kind of vote at critical junctures in the process. — boethius

But that wasn't how it was sold. I wouldn't expect to be given a second shot if I gambled away all of my chips in a casino.

The consequences of the referendum have been triggering article 50, going all the way to 30 months before Brexit deal or no-deal. I believe in the context of the Brexit campaigns, the "binding promise" was more about the idea parliament would just ignore the vote and do nothing; in that scenario, yes I agree it would lower faith in the democratic process; however, the actions of parliament post-Brexit vote have definitely had consequence, and so given all those consequences and actions by the parliament it's quite natural to confirm things in a second vote. — boethius

Yes, there have been consequences, such as those you mention. I'm not denying that. But the whole shebang could become meaningless in the sense that it would've all been for nothing if we end up remaining.

Lots of political decisions have consequences, and people can feel differently about things over time, but that in itself is a fairly weak justification for going back to the public a mere two years later for a do over - and that's what it would be. If you just wanted confirmation of what people think, then you could look at the most recent polling data.

There were no doubt plenty of people who would've liked a do over of the referendum on Scottish independence in 2016, two years after the vote. There were also no doubt plenty of people who would've liked a do over of the 2010 general election two years after it was held. But that doesn't mean that they should get what they want. As a model, that would be both unworkable and undesirable. People want their decisions to mean more than that. If we could just potentially cancel any such decision after a short period of time, then making that initial decison would lose much of that importance. Furthermore, it could end up either wasting a lot of time, money and effort in the case of acting on the initial results, or just cause a pointless two year delay until there's a vote that actually counts.

I say again, the option of a second referendum should be taken as nothing other than a last resort in order to stand a chance of avoiding the unwanted disaster of a no deal scenario. It isn't in itself justified, nor should it be tolerable in light of anything other than the imminent danger of crashing out without a deal.

Yes, my points are mainly on the theme that it's not anti-democratic for Parliament to call a second referendum. — boethius

It would to some extent be an act of self-harm by the establishment within the political system to that very system of which both they and we are a part. That political system is, by the way, a form of democracy. So, although it might not mean or want to be, it is in a sense anti-democratic. Just because a second referendum would be more directly democratic than alternatives, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't undermine the democracy of the United Kingdom; and if it risks doing that, then it's not so different to threats of an explicitly anti-democratic nature.

Given Parliament "represents the people" it isn't anti-democratic "in itself" for parliament to decide not to have a second referendum. — boethius

I agree.

Now, if I was an MP I would vote for a second referendum. — boethius

I don't think that I could do so in good conscience at this stage. The priority should be working towards acquiring a deal good enough to gain a majority in parliament. There's a mandate to leave on good terms, to which I'd be duty bound to respect.

The main argument I would use is that if I struck a preliminary agreement with another business and then the lawyers drafted the final version of the agreement, I of course have the right to backout and even if the lawyers (i.e. my representatives) had power of attorney to sign on my behalf -- and even if their understanding of my instructions left room for interpreting that maybe I don't want to review the final draft -- I would definitely want to review the final draft as well as consult me again at critical points. No competent representative in the business world would act otherwise without either incredibly clear instructions to not-re-consult or then some sort of bizarre situation where confirmation is impossible and so they did their best; in the case of Brexit, re-confirmation is not impossible, and any lawyer would, given a similar situation in business or with individuals, that obviously confirming at each step is the best way to know one is faithfully representing their clients; I don't see why political representatives should have lower standards (which is logic that leads directly to the Swiss system, which I am a big fan of). So yes, I'd expect my representatives to respect my preliminary indication of what to do, but I'd also expect them to come back once they have a clear idea of the agreement or execution plan so that I could give a final decision (preliminary agreements are not binding as that makes negotiations basically impossible, it's binding after the signature and parties can walk away before that; in the case of Brexit it's a highly suspect line of reasoning that "the results of the referendum being biding" continues to make every further step towards Brexit also binding, it's entirely consistent that the results are binding to start implementing the objective and further consultation is reasonable to make subsequent critical steps also binding). — boethius

That interpretation is susceptible to the criticism that there was what was essentially a verbal contract - which was made public knowledge - which stipulated that the government would treat the results of the referendum as binding, even though the referendum was technically only advisory, and even though the ECJ has since ruled that the UK can revoke article 50. It certainly wasn't sold to us as advisory or as a preliminary indication. It could be further argued that if the government were to violate that verbal contract, then they should be held to account in some way. There should be repercussions.

Moreover, you mention a final say, yet there is already due to be a final say. It's due to happen in the House of Commons, and it's on whether or not to accept the deal that is due to be put to the members of that house: our representatives. You might favour a different - more direct - democratic system, but the reality is that that's not the system that we've got here. You might also favour there being more options than that, but the fact is that we already decided to leave, and it would take something big to happen for additional options to become more of a reality. We're not there yet.

I think that the real choice is - or will be - between striking a deal or cancellation. The former could be May's deal, an altered version, or a different deal. (And the deal could change, even if there is signalling on either side that it won't). The latter could be with or without a referendum. And no deal is considered to be the least acceptable option by many, perhaps most, myself included, so I'm still not convinced that it'll actually come to that.

I've never seen a nation so in fear of independence. — Hanover

There are no independent nations these days. We live in a global economy, and all nations are linked by this into mutual dependence. :roll:

I think UK politicians will feel compelled to recognise the results of the first referendum and don't think that realistically their thinking will have evolved or will evolve in the time left that it would lead to a sensible referendum. So it seems politically impossible. Ignoring that I'd think it would be good to have a referendum although I'm still not sure if it is already ready for one considering the lack of detailed analyses of various options. — Benkei

Yes I agree a referendum doesn't seem likely. The plan seems to be to go right to the edge of the "crash out" and so force accepting May's deal; or at least this seems May's plan. I don't know enough about UK politicians to guess what other factions maybe planning. However, if this plan doesn't work, I wager a referendum is more likely than no-deal Brexit and the EU would supply more time if that's needed. Parliament just cancelling Brexit is also in the running but seems less likely to me. A no-deal Brexit seems insane, but so was a vague Brexit vote with vague promises of the vague results being totally binding.

That's a misreading. That's not at all what I meant. I meant that, despite the complexities involved in discussions about Brexit, some of it can be boiled down to some key ethical issues of a more general nature, that we're all familiar with, such as whether a promise should be kept, and under what circumstances would it be justified to break one. — S

Yes, this is also what I'm arguing against. The principle "promises should be kept" is actually quite difficult to apply, even to just add weight among many other considerations.

The "we'll consider it binding" is only really meaningful to consider as referring to the individuals politicians that participated in this claim and not "all parliament", even at the time. There was no law passed explaining what "binding" meant and actually making it "binding" on the government (until repealed of course).

Parliament is not a singular cohesive moral agent, so just to establish who exactly made this promise to begin with is a complicated task. Obviously any new MP could say "hey, I didn't make this promise". Since there was an election in the meantime, any politician that was MP at the time could say their mandate has changed (any representative can always justify a change in position based on claiming their constituents have changed position; whether disingenuous or not, it's a sound argument); so even politicians that unequivocally participated in the promise could say "it was a promise of the previous parliamentary session", now there's a new sessions and it's our job to look at all the options. But I would wager most MP's could easily say they "didn't really back the promise", that they viewed it as a promise of the PM and cabinet at the time.

Then, what was "binding" referring too?, if it wasn't a mandate for a no-deal Brexit and the chaos that would follow, then the only alternative is that it's a mandate to "get a better deal with the EU by a negotiated exit" ... but then who's to say what's a better deal or not?

After doing this, there remains the possibility that the promise has been kept, that everyone understood it to be triggering article 50 which the government did, which at the time everyone understood would "lock in Brexit"; in other words, the "binding actions" have been carried out, that the resulting situation is not what people expected doesn't somehow extend the scope of the "binding promise" one way or another.

So even just establishing what the promise actually meant and who should still feel bound to it and to what extent it has been fulfilled is a complicated philosophical task requiring reviewing each MP's statements and even state of mind of what they believed "binding meant" when they made or were associated with the promise.

That's the problem with vague promises and why verbal contracts rarely get uphold in law. The purpose of a written contract isn't so much as to prove the agreement was struck (a easily forged signature isn't much proof, which is why there are notaries for when the proof is the essential part), but much more to actually spell out what people are agreeing to and why what seems like a simple agreement can be easily dozens or hundreds of pages.

Then, once all this is established there's all the further issues of under what conditions is it right to break the promise and do those conditions exist.

Yes I agree a referendum doesn't seem likely. The plan seems to be to go right to the edge of the "crash out" and so force accepting May's deal; or at least this seems May's plan. I don't know enough about UK politicians to guess what other factions maybe planning. However, if this plan doesn't work, I wager a referendum is more likely than no-deal Brexit and the EU would supply more time if that's needed. Parliament just cancelling Brexit is also in the running but seems less likely to me. A no-deal Brexit seems insane, but so was a vague Brexit vote with vague promises of the vague results being totally binding. — boethius

The more I think about it the more likely I find it that the article 50 notice will be revoked if there's no deal to be had. At least to me that seems the only sane options if the alternative is a no-deal Brexit since there won't be enough time for another referendum.

the only sane option — Benkei

History teaches that sanity cannot be relied on.

Andrea Leadsom and Amber Rudd suggest rival Brexit 'Plan Bs'

Looks like I'm in agreement with Tory cabinet minister, Amber Rudd.

"I have said I don't want a People's Vote or referendum in general but if parliament absolutely failed to reach a consensus I could see there would be a plausible argument for it," the work and pensions secretary told ITV's Robert Peston show. — BBC News

As well as Labour shadow cabinet minister, Angela Rayner.

Speaking on the same programme, Labour's shadow education secretary Angela Rayner said talk of another referendum was "hypothetical" at this stage and would represent a "failure" by Parliament.

She accused the prime minister of trying to scare MPs into backing her deal by delaying the vote on it to the latest possible date. — BBC News

There are no independent nations these days. We live in a global economy, and all nations are linked by this into mutual dependence. :roll: — Pattern-chaser

It's always been a matter of degree.

The US would probably take the UK as the 51st state.

It's always been a matter of degree. — Hanover

Indeed it has/is, but you commented that we are afeared of independence, when there is no longer independence to be had. Unless you suggest we should emulate N Korea in their isolation? And even they depend (heavily) on China, the only nation that will deal with them. Independence is only attractive in theory, in today's world.

Indeed it has/is, but you commented that we are afeared of independence, when there is no longer independence to be had. Unless you suggest we should emulate N Korea in their isolation? And even they depend (heavily) on China, the only nation that will deal with them. Independence is only attractive in theory, in today's world. — Pattern-chaser

Like I said, it's always been a matter of degree, which doesn't imply you have to accept the degree of autonomy that exists in N. Korea in order to be independent. The UK removing itself from the EU won't make it isolationist. I fully expect trade to continue, just under terms negotiated by Britain. I think there's a definition of "independent" that doesn't include being a hermit.

The UK removing itself from the EU won't make it isolationist. — Hanover

:chin:

I fully expect trade to continue, just under terms negotiated by Britain. — Hanover

And how long (after Brexit) must we wait before these negotiations start, never mind bear fruit? At least one country has told us to 'get in line', as they're currently negotiating deals with bigger and more important trading partners than us. Meantime ... no imported food for us? :chin:

I think there's a definition of "independent" that doesn't include being a hermit. — Hanover

A hermit chooses to live in isolation. We won't be choosing that, we'll be finding that it's the case because everyone else is too busy living their interconnected, dependent, lives to have anything to do with a very minor country unable to transcend (or even accept) the loss of its historic empire.... :roll:

History teaches that sanity cannot be relied on. — unenlightened

But never mind the chaos, never mind the so-called decision, and whether anyone can or will make it or has made it, the important thing is that Jeremy Corbyn might have muttered to himself 'Stupid woman", when May was literally doing her pantomime routine in parliament. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-46628420/mps-accuse-corbyn-of-calling-may-stupid-woman

This doesn't make sense if you really think about it. Why would the EU offer a better deal to non-member States? It's not going to happen barring some full scale disintegration of the EU.Also good luck with finding an alternative market as developed with similar purchasing power and the size of the EU. So they'll have GDP growth at some point again but the GDP reduction for the next 2 to 5 years will be real (and a permanent loss compared to remaining). — Benkei

Not all of Europe is in the EU, like Switzerland, Norway, Iceland (to the extent that is part of Europe), to name a few. Why will Britain's departure spell such disaster if other nations have fared well without the EU association? Is there something distinct about Britain's dependence on the EU that doesn't affect these other nations? Maybe the rebel states could form their own confederacy.

Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are EFTA countries with strongly aligned laws with EU laws. They basically accept EU law (but can veto for themselves and other efta members) without having any say in how those laws come about. Moreover, they have had ample time to negotiate other trade and tax deals with other countries, which gives them a basis on which to deal with non - eu countries. The UK on the other hand is going to free fall into a situation with barely any trade deals into place.

Should we just take Theresa May's deal?

It's better than no deal.