"Opinion: a no-deal Brexit is fundamentally morally wrong since it cannot be justified to everyone on grounds that no one could reasonably reject"
This is an impossibly high standard to meet, which is almost never used in politics (liberum veto didn't work well for Poland-Lithuania). It certainly wasn't used when the UK joined the EC (there were plenty people who objected) or when it went to war with Iraq in 2003. And, of course, by "everyone" they really mean "everyone in the usual media / academia / elite circle"...
"Perhaps the only certainty about Brexit is that there is a great deal of uncertainty about the outcome of a no-deal Brexit. Taking this uncertainty seriously demands that we consider all possible outcomes, both negative and positive, and of these possible outcomes we ought to prioritize potential negative consequences. As the moral maxim primum non nocere
reminds us, above all our moral duty is to do no harm."
There's always uncertainty in politics. There is uncertainty when you decide to go to war, when you decide to join a trading bloc, or when you decide to admit a new member to the trading bloc or political alliance you're in. But somehow the "primum non nocere" argument is only trotted out when someone argues against the UK leaving the EU.
This is article is an exercise in hypocrisy masquerading as ethics, IMHO.