By definition Brexit divides and weakens the West. Those responsible for Brexit have a special responsibility to ensure that the damage remains as limited as possible. That implies remaining close to both the EU and US, upholding the rule of law, etc. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/no-deal-brexit-would-be-bad-for-the-west-gs8tvmztf

And there's another point to be made about this well-argued article. It ends: "This country and the EU can either be close strategic partners with a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade deal or bad-tempered neighbours arguing about who is to blame for the failure to reach an agreement."

There is sadly a third possibility. That we end up with a zero-tariff zero-quota deal, and bad-tempered neighbours arguing about what it means and whether the UK should agree to be held to its terms.

I don't think that would be a great outcome either.

Indeed, you could argue (and I'm not necessarily saying you'd be right) that this would be the worst of all outcomes, in that this might become the new normal; whereas with no deal you might have the opportunity to take stock, realise what was at stake, and hit the reset button.

Put it another way: if there is a deal you'd want HMG to sign up to it *enthusiastically* and in good faith, with a view to strengthening the EU-UK relationship. I'm not sure that a deal reluctantly entered into, by a HMG still hostile to the EU, is necessarily such a good idea.

Which brings me back to the first point. Brexit weakens the West, one of whose main institutional pillars is the EU. Brexiteers worried about Western cohesion *ought* to wish the EU well and work for close relationships between it, the UK, and the US.

But I'm not convinced that all of them see things this way.