Since people who spend basically all day arguing about this only have a pretty approximate notion of what the various options mean, don't you think it's a fool's errand arguing to be trying to discern the deeper meaning of the polling of voters who obviously won't have the foggiest idea?
'You might wonder why reasonable people can't reach an agreement on what we should do next. The answer is that they know there is no way Brexit can be implimented without inflicting enormous damage on our country'
I paraphrase from Dominic Grieve.
Yet Open Europe just did a detailed study and said that No Deal would make next to no difference.
Since people who spend basically all day arguing about this only have a pretty approximate notion of what the various options mean, don't you think it's a fool's errand arguing to be trying to discern the deeper meaning of the polling of voters who obviously won't have the foggiest idea?
This is quite true. The only items that the public will focus on is May's actual deal, yes or no.
Mr. HYUFD, interesting. I think in a No Deal/Remain vote, Leave stands a better chance than in a referendum with options of Terrible Deal/Remain.
Of course, we won't find out who's right because we'll only have (at most) one more referendum.
Oh no. If No Deal v Remain Remain will almost certainly win. No Deal is by far Remainers best chance of reversing Brexit.
YouGov had it 55% Remain v 45% No Deal, No Deal has about the same support as Yes for independence did in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, significant but Leave still loses its majority
I am not at all sure that all the professional leavers actually want to leave.
I think some of them are fed up of having to take responsibility eg Nige, they had far more fun when raging against 'betrayal' by the EUphile establishment.
If there is No Deal followed by an EU referendum Remain wins they can then get back to what they enjoy most and Nige can go back to leading UKIP or its successor!
'You might wonder why reasonable people can't reach an agreement on what we should do next. The answer is that they know there is no way Brexit can be implimented without inflicting enormous damage on our country'
I paraphrase from Dominic Grieve.
Could be worse. If Blair had been PM we would have had to go through a phase when we had a Brexit Czar.
However as the poll also shows even Norway has a net favourability of +7% which is still higher than Remain on +1% and far higher than No Deal on -33%.
No Deal is the least favoured outcome whichever way you look at it, if No Deal even Remain is preferred and thus you will have killed Brexit. Hence then Brexit RIP
I will have one more try. Barnier has been absolutely clear that if the UK remains in the CU, it will have to stay aligned with SM regulations. This is obvious because once goods enter a customs union they can circulate within that market because there are no more customs barriers. Also, trade agreements on which a CU is based are by necessity based on the standards of both sides. EU FTAs are based on EU standards, so you can't have goods entering and leaving that CU which are based on a wholly different set of standards as they won't be covered by the EUs trade agreements.
The CU is just a canard to persuade people such as yourself that there is a form of soft Brexit which does not involve Norway. There is not. CU on its own is not available. As a backstop it will involve ongoing alignment with SM regulations and therefore, in due course, the EU will insist on FOM and payments as Barnier has been explicit that the backstop can not allow the UK to remain in the SM by the back door. Which BTW was Robbins plan all along.
So, the only deliverable options are (unless the EU drop the backstop) No Deal and Norway. No Deal will win, quite easily. Even mainstream remainers know that Norway does not respect the referendum result.
CU for the whole UK is not full SM but EVEN if what you say is true and what Barnier is effectively proposing is Norway for the whole UK that does not change my argument. Norway is still preferred to Remain and No Deal and has a far higher net favourability. I know you will dismiss the polls but that is clear, ICM gives Norway a net favourability of +7%, Remain +1%, No Deal -33%.
So Norway beats Remain or No Deal but Remain beats No Deal.
As I said No Deal kills Brexit, No Deal means Brexit RIP
However as the poll also shows even Norway has a net favourability of +7% which is still higher than Remain on +1% and far higher than No Deal on -33%.
No Deal is the least favoured outcome whichever way you look at it, if No Deal even Remain is preferred and thus you will have killed Brexit. Hence then Brexit RIP
I will have one more try. Barnier has been absolutely clear that if the UK remains in the CU, it will have to stay aligned with SM regulations. This is obvious because once goods enter a customs union they can circulate within that market because there are no more customs barriers. Also, trade agreements on which a CU is based are by necessity based on the standards of both sides. EU FTAs are based on EU standards, so you can't have goods entering and leaving that CU which are based on a wholly different set of standards as they won't be covered by the EUs trade agreements.
The CU is just a canard to persuade people such as yourself that there is a form of soft Brexit which does not involve Norway. There is not. CU on its own is not available. As a backstop it will involve ongoing alignment with SM regulations and therefore, in due course, the EU will insist on FOM and payments as Barnier has been explicit that the backstop can not allow the UK to remain in the SM by the back door. Which BTW was Robbins plan all along.
So, the only deliverable options are (unless the EU drop the backstop) No Deal and Norway. No Deal will win, quite easily. Even mainstream remainers know that Norway does not respect the referendum result.
CU for the whole UK is not full SM but EVEN if what you say is true and what Barnier is effectively proposing is Norway for the whole UK that does not change my argument. Norway is still preferred to Remain and No Deal and has a far higher net favourability. I know you will dismiss the polls but that is clear, ICM gives Norway a net favourability of +7%, Remain +1%, No Deal -33%.
So Norway beats Remain or No Deal but Remain beats No Deal.
As I said No Deal kills Brexit, No Deal means Brexit RIP
However as the poll also shows even Norway has a net favourability of +7% which is still higher than Remain on +1% and far higher than No Deal on -33%.
No Deal is the least favoured outcome whichever way you look at it, if No Deal even Remain is preferred and thus you will have killed Brexit. Hence then Brexit RIP
I will have one more try. Barnier has been absolutely clear that if the UK remains in the CU, it will have to stay aligned with SM regulations. This is obvious because once goods enter a customs union they can circulate within that market because there are no more customs barriers. Also, trade agreements on which a CU is based are by necessity based on the standards of both sides. EU FTAs are based on EU standards, so you can't have goods entering and leaving that CU which are based on a wholly different set of standards as they won't be covered by the EUs trade agreements.
The CU is just a canard to persuade people such as yourself that there is a form of soft Brexit which does not involve Norway. There is not. CU on its own is not available. As a backstop it will involve ongoing alignment with SM regulations and therefore, in due course, the EU will insist on FOM and payments as Barnier has been explicit that the backstop can not allow the UK to remain in the SM by the back door. Which BTW was Robbins plan all along.
So, the only deliverable options are (unless the EU drop the backstop) No Deal and Norway. No Deal will win, quite easily. Even mainstream remainers know that Norway does not respect the referendum result.
CU for the whole UK is not full SM but EVEN if what you say is true and what Barnier is effectively proposing is Norway for the whole UK that does not change my argument. Norway is still preferred to Remain and No Deal and has a far higher net favourability. I know you will dismiss the polls but that is clear, ICM gives Norway a net favourability of +7%, Remain +1%, No Deal -33%.
So Norway beats Remain or No Deal but Remain beats No Deal.
As I said No Deal kills Brexit, No Deal means Brexit RIP
Exactly. Why are so few people saying this?
As they are too busy engaged in the short term politics rather than thinking about the sustainable and long term Brexit options
What a preposterously torturous attempt to twist words into meaninglessness.
It's beyond a joke. Our EU membership itself came post-Lisbon with a 2-year exit clause yet this backstop presumably has no exit clause. It is insane.
It's not insane if the intention is that we will never leave. And why would the civil servant negotiating this care when he's not the one who has to sell it to the public?
Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and will remain so for as long as a majority there want that to be the case. As a part of the United Kingdom it is subject to the laws of the United Kingdom and not subject to external laws except to the extent that the whole of the UK has agreed to be so bound.
This strikes me as self evident which is why it is self evident that the back stop agreement was an unacceptable mistake. Foster said so at the time so the wording was changed but the EU maintain that the change in wording made no difference. MRDA.
May herself has said that no Prime Minister of the United Kingdom can enter into a deal which disrupts the integrity of the United Kingdom. She was right. No deal with the EU can be permitted to do that. So the options are either the whole of the UK comes into some form of CU with the EU or none of us does. In the latter scenario we can and should do everything to mitigate the extent of disruption caused by a land border between the EU and the UK but it is absurd to pretend that that border will not be more significant than it is today when both sides are in a SM, CU and subject to CJEU determination of any disputes that arise. That's what leaving means.
It seems to me that the EU either accept that or they don't. It is their choice and we can't make them accept it. If they don't then I don't see how an overarching deal will be possible. If we cannot agree on the existence of a border between the EU and the UK then agreement on the terms of trade etc would be impossible. In such a scenario the UK government must do as much as it can to mitigate the absence of a deal so we should be looking for as many mini deals as possible dealing with transport, planes, tariffs, respect for pre-existing residency rights, mutual recognition of certification of standards for medicines, goods etc. Again, the EU cannot be compelled to agree any of this but it is in their interests to do so and we can be hopeful that they will.
What is not a sensible option is people like Hancock (who really should need a note from his mum before being allowed to do interviews) trying to pretend that there is not an issue here and that we can find some magical wording that gives both sides what they say they currently want. Firstly, its not true. Secondly, it is a completely crap way of negotiating and suggests that we are the ones who will give in. But we can't.
I suspect there is a substantial tranche of public opinion that adopts the view that it is wrong that a democratic state is unable to leave the EU in a harmless and equitable way. Our government may be incompetent, but that isn't the sole reason leaving is unnecessarily difficulties.
It is perfectly possible to leave, just not possible to leave and then to claim the benefits of remaining.
The EU is not at fault for the Brexiteers failure to understand!
Foxy, a matter of opinion, it would seem. Anna says it can't be delivered, in her view we can't leave. That is, in my view, a message that adds resolve and impetus to leave. Counter productive to the remain cause.
There are only two possibilities here. One is that Soubry is lying, the other is that she is telling the truth because we have been lied to for 30 years about the depth of integration into the EU project. Neither looks good.
If one part of the UK was in the CU and another not, isn’t that entirely the kind of classic British fudge that we used to be able to play to our advantage. Isn’t it potentially beneficial being able to straddle two worlds, picking and choosing which one to play in on a case by case basis?
CU for the whole UK is not full SM but EVEN if what you say is true and what Barnier is effectively proposing is Norway for the whole UK that does not change my argument. Norway is still preferred to Remain and No Deal and has a far higher net favourability. I know you will dismiss the polls but that is clear, ICM gives Norway a net favourability of +7%, Remain +1%, No Deal -33%.
So Norway beats Remain or No Deal but Remain beats No Deal.
As I said No Deal kills Brexit, No Deal means Brexit RIP
Exactly. Why are so few people saying this?
Well if few people are saying it, that is probably because it is nonsense. Brexit will not be stopped by a reversal. May's plan is the likely way is can be stopped in practice.
There is never going to be a second referendum on Remain/Leave, no matter how much HYUFD repeats it. The Government will never propose it, and on that basis it cannot happen. It will not solve anything. And the moment that we leave on 31 March 2019, it is too late.
What is becoming clear this morning is that people are focussing on how absurd it is that the UK might actually sign up to the backstop and that May is looking ridiculous pretending a deal can be indefinite and temporary at the same time. No deal is looking more and more likely.
'You might wonder why reasonable people can't reach an agreement on what we should do next. The answer is that they know there is no way Brexit can be implimented without inflicting enormous damage on our country'
I paraphrase from Dominic Grieve.
Could be worse. If Blair had been PM we would have had to go through a phase when we had a Brexit Czar.
If Blair was still PM we wouldn't have been in this particular mess as he wasn't as stupid as to have a referendum in the first place, and if he had been forced to have one, would have been damn sure that he would have won it.
If one part of the UK was in the CU and another not, isn’t that entirely the kind of classic British fudge that we used to be able to play to our advantage. Isn’t it potentially beneficial being able to straddle two worlds, picking and choosing which one to play in on a case by case basis?
Not if it threatens the integrity of the UK. Which it would.
'You might wonder why reasonable people can't reach an agreement on what we should do next. The answer is that they know there is no way Brexit can be implimented without inflicting enormous damage on our country'
I paraphrase from Dominic Grieve.
Could be worse. If Blair had been PM we would have had to go through a phase when we had a Brexit Czar.
If Blair was still PM we wouldn't have been in this particular mess as he wasn't as stupid as to have a referendum in the first place, and if he had been forced to have one, would have been damn sure that he would have won it.
Blair and Brown would have put a threshold on any vote.
'You might wonder why reasonable people can't reach an agreement on what we should do next. The answer is that they know there is no way Brexit can be implimented without inflicting enormous damage on our country'
I paraphrase from Dominic Grieve.
Could be worse. If Blair had been PM we would have had to go through a phase when we had a Brexit Czar.
If Blair was still PM we wouldn't have been in this particular mess as he wasn't as stupid as to have a referendum in the first place, and if he had been forced to have one, would have been damn sure that he would have won it.
Blair and Brown would have put a threshold on any vote.
TBH if we’d had a threshold.... say minimum 60% for a change........ the madder Leavers would be trying for another one. Look at Scotland!
If one part of the UK was in the CU and another not, isn’t that entirely the kind of classic British fudge that we used to be able to play to our advantage. Isn’t it potentially beneficial being able to straddle two worlds, picking and choosing which one to play in on a case by case basis?
I can respect a lot of Brexit views, even if I don't agree with them. But saying that the UK should stay in the CU as a solution to Brexit is simply stupid and strongly suggests that those advocating it have no idea what it means. It would be far better to remain than leave and stay in the CU - and if someone like me is saying that, it might be a clue as to how bad it is.
There is a reason that EEA nations are not in the CU.
Hannan has a good article today which sets it out, if people want to learn more:
All this UKIP talk is a red herring. The real problem causing gridlock isn't Brexit, it's the two main party leaders. They are essentially symbiotic - without the other, they'd be further behind their rivals than a child's scooter in a ten mile drag race against Lewis Hamilton's Mercedes.
The next election may well be won by whoever ditches their leader at the right moment. The advantage the Tories have is they can control that moment, whereas Corbyn holds his fate in his own hands.
In the meanwhile of course we're in a state of political paralysis not seen since the days of the egregious paedophile Lord Melbourne, but you can't win them all.
Not sure I agree. While we can't be sure yet, I suspect TMay is going to pull off a reasonable deal, and as per previous thread get it through HoC. Davis's desperate intervention is perhaps a measure that he knows it too. Given the circumstances, it would be a tremendous achievement, and should strengthen her position. For the first time, I'm beginning to think she'll lead the Tories to an outright victory at the next GE, whenever that is.
May has a lot of enemies now and will need to avoid repeating silly mistakes, any one could trigger a challenge. She is prone to mistakes.
She is indeed. But you have to admire her resilience.
True. I think that explains the Tories polling comparatively well. They would be mad to get rid of her. But doing mad things is sort of their thing.
I suspect that the Tory polling has a lot to do with the Opposition and non-Brexit issues being frozen out from day to day commentary. That would change during an election campaign as we saw last year.
CU for the whole UK is not full SM but EVEN if what you say is true and what Barnier is effectively proposing is Norway for the whole UK that does not change my argument. Norway is still preferred to Remain and No Deal and has a far higher net favourability. I know you will dismiss the polls but that is clear, ICM gives Norway a net favourability of +7%, Remain +1%, No Deal -33%.
So Norway beats Remain or No Deal but Remain beats No Deal.
As I said No Deal kills Brexit, No Deal means Brexit RIP
Exactly. Why are so few people saying this?
Well if few people are saying it, that is probably because it is nonsense. Brexit will not be stopped by a reversal. May's plan is the likely way is can be stopped in practice.
There is never going to be a second referendum on Remain/Leave, no matter how much HYUFD repeats it. The Government will never propose it, and on that basis it cannot happen. It will not solve anything. And the moment that we leave on 31 March 2019, it is too late.
What is becoming clear this morning is that people are focussing on how absurd it is that the UK might actually sign up to the backstop and that May is looking ridiculous pretending a deal can be indefinite and temporary at the same time. No deal is looking more and more likely.
Oh no, there will either be a second referendum before 31st March 2019 if No Deal, Parliament will always vote for EUref2 over No Deal, we know that Tory MPs like Rudd have said they will switch to backing a 'people's vote' rather than accept No Deal which would give a 'People's vote' a comfortable Commons majority. Remain would then win that referendum over No Deal and Brexit will be cancelled.
Or if May cannot get her deal through Parliament in November she may well call a general election before Christmas which she will either win with a majority for her Deal or Corbyn will win with enough MPs to become PM and will then almost replicate her plan as Labour's policy is for the whole UK to stay in a Customs Union.
If one part of the UK was in the CU and another not, isn’t that entirely the kind of classic British fudge that we used to be able to play to our advantage. Isn’t it potentially beneficial being able to straddle two worlds, picking and choosing which one to play in on a case by case basis?
Not if it threatens the integrity of the UK. Which it would.
Surely it would only if we let it. To be clear, I am not advocating anything. Just exploring the option and assuming British pragmatism and ingenuity comes into play again rather than this new dogmatic stuff. As Archer points out Remain might be a better option.
Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and will remain so for as long as a majority there want that to be the case. As a part of the United Kingdom it is subject to the laws of the United Kingdom and not subject to external laws except to the extent that the whole of the UK has agreed to be so bound.
This strikes me as self evident which is why it is self evident that the back stop agreement was an unacceptable mistake. Foster said so at the time so the wording was changed but the EU maintain that the change in wording made no difference. MRDA.
May herself has said that no Prime Minister of the United Kingdom can enter into a deal which disrupts the integrity of the United Kingdom. She was right. No deal with the EU can be permitted to do that. So the options are either the whole of the UK comes into some form of CU with the EU or none of us does. In the latter scenario we can and should do everything to mitigate the extent of disruption caused by a land border between the EU and the UK but it is absurd to pretend that that border will not be more significant than it is today when both sides are in a SM, CU and subject to CJEU determination of any disputes that arise. That's what leaving means.
It seems to me that the EU either accept that or they don't. It is their choice and we can't make them accept it. If they don't then I don't see how an overarching deal will be possible. If we cannot agree on the existence of a border between the EU and the UK then agreement on the terms of trade etc would be impossible. In such a scenario the UK government must do as much as it can to mitigate the absence of a deal so we should be looking for as many mini deals as possible dealing with transport, planes, tariffs, respect for pre-existing residency rights, mutual recognition of certification of standards for medicines, goods etc. Again, the EU cannot be compelled to agree any of this but it is in their interests to do so and we can be hopeful that they will.
What is not a sensible option is people like Hancock (who really should need a note from his mum before being allowed to do interviews) trying to pretend that there is not an issue here and that we can find some magical wording that gives both sides what they say they currently want. Firstly, its not true. Secondly, it is a completely crap way of negotiating and suggests that we are the ones who will give in. But we can't.
Its curious that the EU only seems interested in preserving the parts of the Belfast agreement that suit its purposes but cheerfully drives a coach & horses ('principle of consent') through things that don't - like a border in the Irish sea. Might be called 'cherry picking'......
'You might wonder why reasonable people can't reach an agreement on what we should do next. The answer is that they know there is no way Brexit can be implimented without inflicting enormous damage on our country'
I paraphrase from Dominic Grieve.
Could be worse. If Blair had been PM we would have had to go through a phase when we had a Brexit Czar.
If Blair was still PM we wouldn't have been in this particular mess as he wasn't as stupid as to have a referendum in the first place, and if he had been forced to have one, would have been damn sure that he would have won it.
Blair and Brown would have put a threshold on any vote.
TBH if we’d had a threshold.... say minimum 60% for a change........ the madder Leavers would be trying for another one. Look at Scotland!
You trying to say that anyone wanting independence for Scotland is mad. We had a fixed referendum in Scotland the first time, when they counted the dead as No's. No democracy for Scotland in UK is the norm.
CU for the whole UK is not full SM but EVEN if what you say is true and what Barnier is effectively proposing is Norway for the whole UK that does not change my argument. Norway is still preferred to Remain and No Deal and has a far higher net favourability. I know you will dismiss the polls but that is clear, ICM gives Norway a net favourability of +7%, Remain +1%, No Deal -33%.
So Norway beats Remain or No Deal but Remain beats No Deal.
As I said No Deal kills Brexit, No Deal means Brexit RIP
Exactly. Why are so few people saying this?
Well if few people are saying it, that is probably because it is nonsense. Brexit will not be stopped by a reversal. May's plan is the likely way is can be stopped in practice.
There is never going to be a second referendum on Remain/Leave, no matter how much HYUFD repeats it. The Government will never propose it, and on that basis it cannot happen. It will not solve anything. And the moment that we leave on 31 March 2019, it is too late.
What is becoming clear this morning is that people are focussing on how absurd it is that the UK might actually sign up to the backstop and that May is looking ridiculous pretending a deal can be indefinite and temporary at the same time. No deal is looking more and more likely.
Either way there is no way we Brexit with No Deal
You are rather bravely excluding 'cock-up' from your scenarios......
What that question is really asking is: "With hindsight, did you expect the UK Prime Minister to put up such an abject performance when negotiating the terms of the UK's exit from the EU?"
Submitting to regulatory annexation isn't 'British fudge'. It's EU imperialism.
You are wrong about nearly everything, but you are off the scale on this one. The Northern Ireland problem is entirely due to the unique history of that part of the world that long predates even the idea of the EU. That the EU has provided a good framework for solving it was certainly an unanticipated benefit of membership, but was a benefit nonetheless. Ireland remains a member of the EU. There is simply no way you can twist this round to being the EU's fault.
Rather than moaning and blame seeking I suggest you start getting used to the idea that when we leave, Ireland's membership of the EU means it is now the more powerful of the two governments in these islands.
What that question is really asking is: "With hindsight, did you expect the UK Prime Minister to put up such an abject performance when negotiating the terms of the UK's exit from the EU?"
If one part of the UK was in the CU and another not, isn’t that entirely the kind of classic British fudge that we used to be able to play to our advantage. Isn’t it potentially beneficial being able to straddle two worlds, picking and choosing which one to play in on a case by case basis?
Not if it threatens the integrity of the UK. Which it would.
The territorial integrity of the UK can only be altered by vote.
CU for the whole UK is not full SM but EVEN if what you say is true and what Barnier is effectively proposing is Norway for the whole UK that does not change my argument. Norway is still preferred to Remain and No Deal and has a far higher net favourability. I know you will dismiss the polls but that is clear, ICM gives Norway a net favourability of +7%, Remain +1%, No Deal -33%.
So Norway beats Remain or No Deal but Remain beats No Deal.
As I said No Deal kills Brexit, No Deal means Brexit RIP
Exactly. Why are so few people saying this?
Well if few people are saying it, that is probably because it is nonsense. Brexit will not be stopped by a reversal. May's plan is the likely way is can be stopped in practice.
There is never going to be a second referendum on Remain/Leave, no matter how much HYUFD repeats it. The Government will never propose it, and on that basis it cannot happen. It will not solve anything. And the moment that we leave on 31 March 2019, it is too late.
What is becoming clear this morning is that people are focussing on how absurd it is that the UK might actually sign up to the backstop and that May is looking ridiculous pretending a deal can be indefinite and temporary at the same time. No deal is looking more and more likely.
Either way there is no way we Brexit with No Deal
You are rather bravely excluding 'cock-up' from your scenarios......
Which means what? If the PM cannot get her Deal through Parliament she will call a general election to get a mandate for her Deal as the Mail confirms today, which she will either win or Corbyn will win effectively replicating her Deal.
There is also a clear majority in the Commons for EUref2 or Norway over No Deal.
When the PM, the Leader of the Opposition and Parliament and the majority of voters ALL oppose No Deal there is no way it can be the ultimate outcome of Brexit
CU for the whole UK is not full SM but EVEN if what you say is true and what Barnier is effectively proposing is Norway for the whole UK that does not change my argument. Norway is still preferred to Remain and No Deal and has a far higher net favourability. I know you will dismiss the polls but that is clear, ICM gives Norway a net favourability of +7%, Remain +1%, No Deal -33%.
So Norway beats Remain or No Deal but Remain beats No Deal.
As I said No Deal kills Brexit, No Deal means Brexit RIP
Exactly. Why are so few people saying this?
Well if few people are saying it, that is probably because it is nonsense. Brexit will not be stopped by a reversal. May's plan is the likely way is can be stopped in practice.
There is never going to be a second referendum on Remain/Leave, no matter how much HYUFD repeats it. The Government will never propose it, and on that basis it cannot happen. It will not solve anything. And the moment that we leave on 31 March 2019, it is too late.
What is becoming clear this morning is that people are focussing on how absurd it is that the UK might actually sign up to the backstop and that May is looking ridiculous pretending a deal can be indefinite and temporary at the same time. No deal is looking more and more likely.
Either way there is no way we Brexit with No Deal
You are rather bravely excluding 'cock-up' from your scenarios......
At the minimum it requires agreement of all 28 countires to an extension of Article 50.
What that question is really asking is: "With hindsight, did you expect the UK Prime Minister to put up such an abject performance when negotiating the terms of the UK's exit from the EU?"
With hindsight, did you expect the charlatans and mountebanks who sold you the Brexit lie to run away when the true extent of their clusterfuck was revealed?
If one part of the UK was in the CU and another not, isn’t that entirely the kind of classic British fudge that we used to be able to play to our advantage. Isn’t it potentially beneficial being able to straddle two worlds, picking and choosing which one to play in on a case by case basis?
I can respect a lot of Brexit views, even if I don't agree with them. But saying that the UK should stay in the CU as a solution to Brexit is simply stupid and strongly suggests that those advocating it have no idea what it means. It would be far better to remain than leave and stay in the CU - and if someone like me is saying that, it might be a clue as to how bad it is.
There is a reason that EEA nations are not in the CU.
Hannan has a good article today which sets it out, if people want to learn more:
Mr. Recidivist, the EU seeking to demand permanent regulatory dominion over UK territory is their fault, because it's their negotiating position. Blaming the UK for the EU negotiating position is a twisted logic.
All this UKIP talk is a red herring. The real problem causing gridlock isn't Brexit, it's the two main party leaders. They are essentially symbiotic - without the other, they'd be further behind their rivals than a child's scooter in a ten mile drag race against Lewis Hamilton's Mercedes.
The next election may well be won by whoever ditches their leader at the right moment. The advantage the Tories have is they can control that moment, whereas Corbyn holds his fate in his own hands.
In the meanwhile of course we're in a state of political paralysis not seen since the days of the egregious paedophile Lord Melbourne, but you can't win them all.
Not sure I agree. While we can't be sure yet, I suspect TMay is going to pull off a reasonable deal, and as per previous thread get it through HoC. Davis's desperate intervention is perhaps a measure that he knows it too. Given the circumstances, it would be a tremendous achievement, and should strengthen her position. For the first time, I'm beginning to think she'll lead the Tories to an outright victory at the next GE, whenever that is.
May has a lot of enemies now and will need to avoid repeating silly mistakes, any one could trigger a challenge. She is prone to mistakes.
She is indeed. But you have to admire her resilience.
True. I think that explains the Tories polling comparatively well. They would be mad to get rid of her. But doing mad things is sort of their thing.
I suspect that the Tory polling has a lot to do with the Opposition and non-Brexit issues being frozen out from day to day commentary. That would change during an election campaign as we saw last year.
2017 was a one off. No one thought Corbyn had a prayer (obviously inc May) and anyone with half a brain and no hard party allegiance, wouldn't want the ruling party to have so large a majority that it could pretty much get away with anything. May was kidded by this (until it was too late) and thought all she had to do was turn up (or not).
No deal is the purest Brexit, and also the poorest Brexit in the eyes of Remainers. "Nobody voted Brexit to make themselves poorer" they tell us. But we did. The illuminati, the great and the good, told us incessantly before we voted that Brexit makes us poorer. Nevertheless that is how we voted.
A "temporary backstop" is the latest wheeze of recalcitrant Tory remainers, but it is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. A backstop cannot, by definition, be time limited. The very idea reveals their desperation to renege on the referendum.
Coveney, Varadkar and Barnier have pulled the wool over our team's eyes. The GFA should not have had any role in the Brexit negotiations. Instead it appears to be the fulcrum on which the whole thing balances.
What that question is really asking is: "With hindsight, did you expect the UK Prime Minister to put up such an abject performance when negotiating the terms of the UK's exit from the EU?"
We are where we are because voters were promised an undeliverable Brexit. May’s absurd triggering of A50 and ridiculous red lines compounded that, but the essential truth is that contrary to the claims of the Buccaneering Brexiteers it is impossible to have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides.
Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and will remain so for as long as a majority there want that to be the case. As a part of the United Kingdom it is subject to the laws of the United Kingdom and not subject to external laws except to the extent that the whole of the UK has agreed to be so bound. This strikes me as self evident which is why it is self evident that the back stop agreement was an unacceptable mistake. Foster said so at the time so the wording was changed but the EU maintain that the change in wording made no difference. MRDA.
It was not a mistake if May's intention was from the outset to construct the negotiations in such a way that eventually the UK could only reach a deal by agreeing to remain within an effective customs union, while keeping the leading Brexiteers on board for as long as possible. And, with hindsight, I think that was her intention.
Mr. Recidivist, the EU seeking to demand permanent regulatory dominion over UK territory is their fault, because it's their negotiating position. Blaming the UK for the EU negotiating position is a twisted logic.
But they are doing it to try to protect a beneficial arrangement on the border. If they were doing the same for Kent you would have a point.
And Heseltine had the explicit support of 41%, which rather proves my point. But that’s history (though some of us oldies remember it as yesterday).
Across both ballots, only about one-third of the Tories consistently supported him. Although his vote only dipped slightly on the second ballot, that hid substantial churn as a large chunk deserted him for Major or Hurd and a few were so misguided as to back him in the belief he would win.
Admittedly I think that's a better performance than Boris would put up. But most of his votes were because he wasn't Thatcher (who, ironically, won in 1975 largely because she wasn't Heath).
I have to go. Have a good day.
If I was making a prediction (rather than what I want) I would say that if May fails to get her Deal through Parliament she will call a general election before Christmas and it will be a repeat of February 1974, the Tories will likely win most votes (quite probably most seats too) and like Heath then a majority in England and Cable will hold the balance of power much as Thorpe did after the February 1974 election.
Talks between May and Cable will not progress as those with Heath and Thorpe did not then and Corbyn will end up PM of a minority government as Wilson did and Corbyn will then agree a Deal with the EU almost identical to the one May was proposing before we leave the EU next March.
May will then be toppled as Tory leader within a year and replaced by a Brexiteer, probably Boris, possibly Patel, Mogg or Cox much like Heath was toppled by Thatcher in early 1975
The last possible Thursday for a pre-Christmas election is 20th December which would require Parliament to be Dissolved on 15th November. Any election announcement would likely be a week earlier. How likely is that?
Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and will remain so for as long as a majority there want that to be the case. As a part of the United Kingdom it is subject to the laws of the United Kingdom and not subject to external laws except to the extent that the whole of the UK has agreed to be so bound. This strikes me as self evident which is why it is self evident that the back stop agreement was an unacceptable mistake. Foster said so at the time so the wording was changed but the EU maintain that the change in wording made no difference. MRDA.
It was not a mistake if May's intention was from the outset to construct the negotiations in such a way that eventually the UK could only reach a deal by agreeing to remain within an effective customs union, while keeping the leading Brexiteers on board for as long as possible. And, with hindsight, I think that was her intention.
Certainly the intention of the team she has surrounded herself with.....
'You might wonder why reasonable people can't reach an agreement on what we should do next. The answer is that they know there is no way Brexit can be implimented without inflicting enormous damage on our country'
I paraphrase from Dominic Grieve.
Could be worse. If Blair had been PM we would have had to go through a phase when we had a Brexit Czar.
If Blair was still PM we wouldn't have been in this particular mess as he wasn't as stupid as to have a referendum in the first place, and if he had been forced to have one, would have been damn sure that he would have won it.
Blair and Brown would have put a threshold on any vote.
TBH if we’d had a threshold.... say minimum 60% for a change........ the madder Leavers would be trying for another one. Look at Scotland!
You trying to say that anyone wanting independence for Scotland is mad. We had a fixed referendum in Scotland the first time, when they counted the dead as No's. No democracy for Scotland in UK is the norm.
No, Malc, of course not. I’m saying that the Nationalists in Scotland aren’t giving up and in their determination they can be compared with people like Boris. Sad perhaps, but in politics the line between determination and fanaticism can be narrow.
Anyway, how were the dead counted as nos? Do you mean that it had to be whatever percentage of the electoral register? If so, how old was that register?
What that question is really asking is: "With hindsight, did you expect the UK Prime Minister to put up such an abject performance when negotiating the terms of the UK's exit from the EU?"
We are where we are because voters were promised an undeliverable Brexit. May’s absurd triggering of A50 and ridiculous red lines compounded that, but the essential truth is that contrary to the claims of the Buccaneering Brexiteers it is impossible to have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides.
You are signing up to the concept that Article 50 is a con - once in, you can never leave.
CU for the whole UK is not full SM but EVEN if what you say is true and what Barnier is effectively proposing is Norway for the whole UK that does not change my argument. Norway is still preferred to Remain and No Deal and has a far higher net favourability. I know you will dismiss the polls but that is clear, ICM gives Norway a net favourability of +7%, Remain +1%, No Deal -33%.
So Norway beats Remain or No Deal but Remain beats No Deal.
As I said No Deal kills Brexit, No Deal means Brexit RIP
Exactly. Why are so few people saying this?
Well if few people are saying it, that is probably because it is nonsense. Brexit will not be stopped by a reversal. May's plan is the likely way is can be stopped in practice.
There is never going to be a second referendum on Remain/Leave, no matter how much HYUFD repeats it. The Government will never propose it, and on that basis it cannot happen. It will not solve anything. And the moment that we leave on 31 March 2019, it is too late.
What is becoming clear this morning is that people are focussing on how absurd it is that the UK might actually sign up to the backstop and that May is looking ridiculous pretending a deal can be indefinite and temporary at the same time. No deal is looking more and more likely.
Either way there is no way we Brexit with No Deal
You are rather bravely excluding 'cock-up' from your scenarios......
When the PM, the Leader of the Opposition and Parliament opposes No Deal there is no way it can be the ultimate outcome of Brexit
You assume, bravely, that all are in command of their fates.
The law has been passed. We will leave the EU at 23.00 on the 29th of March. Unless something else happens.
I wouldn't put too much faith in one line in the Mail on Sunday. Even if that is true, it is entirely possible that a fresh General Election results in another deadlocked parliament - the 'meaningful vote' does not need to take place until January (and we know Mrs May's motto is 'why do today what you can put off until tomorrow?') - if that fails we have to get through the FTPA and the new requirement that a GE campaign is 25 working days excluding public holidays. So we could be having a GE in late February/early March. Why would the EU unanimously grant an extension to a country that is struggling to govern itself?
No deal is the purest Brexit, and also the poorest Brexit in the eyes of Remainers. "Nobody voted Brexit to make themselves poorer" they tell us. But we did. The illuminati, the great and the good, told us incessantly before we voted that Brexit makes us poorer. Nevertheless that is how we voted.
A "temporary backstop" is the latest wheeze of recalcitrant Tory remainers, but it is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. A backstop cannot, by definition, be time limited. The very idea reveals their desperation to renege on the referendum.
Coveney, Varadkar and Barnier have pulled the wool over our team's eyes. The GFA should not have had any role in the Brexit negotiations. Instead it appears to be the fulcrum on which the whole thing balances.
Ludicrous. When it was pointed out Brexit would make the UK poorer and less influential the side that won the most votes said it wouldn’t. They called such predictions Project Fear.
And Heseltine had the explicit support of 41%, which rather proves my point. But that’s history (though some of us oldies remember it as yesterday).
Across both ballots, only about one-third of the Tories consistently supported him. Although his vote only dipped slightly on the second ballot, that hid substantial churn as a large chunk deserted him for Major or Hurd and a few were so misguided as to back him in the belief he would win.
Admittedly I think that's a better performance than Boris would put up. But most of his votes were because he wasn't Thatcher (who, ironically, won in 1975 largely because she wasn't Heath).
I have to go. Have a good day.
If I was making a prediction (rather than what I want) I would say that if May fails to get her Deal through Parliament she will call a general election before Christmas and it will be a repeat of February 1974, the Tories will likely win most votes (quite probably most seats too) and like Heath then a majority in England and Cable will hold the balance of power much as Thorpe did after the February 1974 election.
Talks between May and Cable will not progress as those with Heath and Thorpe did not then and Corbyn will end up PM of a minority government as Wilson did and Corbyn will then agree a Deal with the EU almost identical to the one May was proposing before we leave the EU next March.
May will then be toppled as Tory leader within a year and replaced by a Brexiteer, probably Boris, possibly Patel, Mogg or Cox much like Heath was toppled by Thatcher in early 1975
The last possible Thursday for a pre-Christmas election is 20th December which would require Parliament to be Dissolved on 15th November. Any election announcement would likely be a week earlier. How likely is that?
Plus the time needed to fix the requirements of the FTPA. How long did that take in 2016? Brings it back at least another week, doesn’t it?
What that question is really asking is: "With hindsight, did you expect the UK Prime Minister to put up such an abject performance when negotiating the terms of the UK's exit from the EU?"
We are where we are because voters were promised an undeliverable Brexit. May’s absurd triggering of A50 and ridiculous red lines compounded that, but the essential truth is that contrary to the claims of the Buccaneering Brexiteers it is impossible to have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides.
You are signing up to the concept that Article 50 is a con - once in, you can never leave.
When the PM, the Leader of the Opposition and Parliament opposes No Deal there is no way it can be the ultimate outcome of Brexit
The PM, the Leader of the Oppositionand Parliament all opposed Brexit before the vote, yet here we are...
The voters backed Leave then but only by a 4% margin and with Leave leading most polls a fortnight before the vote, the voters comfortably oppose No Deal now in EVERY poll asked.
Not one poll has No Deal preferred to Remain or ANY other Brexit option.
Parliament in any case will prefer a general election, EUref 2 or ultimately the Norway option over No Deal
CU for the whole UK is not full SM but EVEN if what you say is true and what Barnier is effectively proposing is Norway for the whole UK that does not change my argument. Norway is still preferred to Remain and No Deal and has a far higher net favourability. I know you will dismiss the polls but that is clear, ICM gives Norway a net favourability of +7%, Remain +1%, No Deal -33%.
So Norway beats Remain or No Deal but Remain beats No Deal.
As I said No Deal kills Brexit, No Deal means Brexit RIP
Exactly. Why are so few people saying this?
Well if few people are saying it, that is probably because it is nonsense. Brexit will not be stopped by a reversal. May's plan is the likely way is can be stopped in practice.
There is never going to be a second referendum on Remain/Leave, no matter how much HYUFD repeats it. The Government will never propose it, and on that basis it cannot happen. It will not solve anything. And the moment that we leave on 31 March 2019, it is too late.
What is becoming clear this morning is that people are focussing on how absurd it is that the UK might actually sign up to the backstop and that May is looking ridiculous pretending a deal can be indefinite and temporary at the same time. No deal is looking more and more likely.
Either way there is no way we Brexit with No Deal
You are rather bravely excluding 'cock-up' from your scenarios......
When the PM, the Leader of the Opposition and Parliament opposes No Deal there is no way it can be the ultimate outcome of Brexit
You assume, bravely, that all are in command of their fates.
The law has been passed. We will leave the EU at 23.00 on the 29th of March. Unless something else happens.
I wouldn't put too much faith in one line in the Mail on Sunday. Even if that is true, it is entirely possible that a fresh General Election results in another deadlocked parliament - the 'meaningful vote' does not need to take place until January (and we know Mrs May's motto is 'why do today what you can put off until tomorrow?') - if that fails we have to get through the FTPA and the new requirement that a GE campaign is 25 working days excluding public holidays. So we could be having a GE in late February/early March. Why would the EU unanimously grant an extension to a country that is struggling to govern itself?
Their preferred position is that we don’t leave, but that we stop fannying about and take our place again as sensible contributors to the polity of Europe..
What that question is really asking is: "With hindsight, did you expect the UK Prime Minister to put up such an abject performance when negotiating the terms of the UK's exit from the EU?"
We are where we are because voters were promised an undeliverable Brexit. May’s absurd triggering of A50 and ridiculous red lines compounded that, but the essential truth is that contrary to the claims of the Buccaneering Brexiteers it is impossible to have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides.
It would be perfectly possible if the UK had started off with a robust negotiating position rather than throwing concessions away like a jellyfish. In the 2017 election Labour as well as the Conservatives promised to negotiate for a very different outcome than the BINO outcome which May has sought. As for the supposed benefits of EU membership, all the features commonly cited are those of mutual interest and as such easily achievable by reciprocal agreement. For example mutual agreements on health treatment, or cross border cooperation on policing. That just leaves us with the costs then.
And Heseltine had the explicit support of 41%, which rather proves my point. But that’s history (though some of us oldies remember it as yesterday).
Across both ballots, only about one-third of the Tories consistently supported him. Although his vote only dipped slightly on the second ballot, that hid substantial churn as a large chunk deserted him for Major or Hurd and a few were so misguided as to back him in the belief he would win.
Admittedly I think that's a better performance than Boris would put up. But most of his votes were because he wasn't Thatcher (who, ironically, won in 1975 largely because she wasn't Heath).
I have to go. Have a good day.
If I was making a prediction (rather than what I want) I would say that if May fails to get her Deal through Parliament she will call a general election before Christmas and it will be a repeat of February 1974, the Tories will likely win most votes (quite probably most seats too) and like Heath then a majority in England and Cable will hold the balance of power much as Thorpe did after the February 1974 election.
Talks between May and Cable will not progress as those with Heath and Thorpe did not then and Corbyn will end up PM of a minority government as Wilson did and Corbyn will then agree a Deal with the EU almost identical to the one May was proposing before we leave the EU next March.
May will then be toppled as Tory leader within a year and replaced by a Brexiteer, probably Boris, possibly Patel, Mogg or Cox much like Heath was toppled by Thatcher in early 1975
The last possible Thursday for a pre-Christmas election is 20th December which would require Parliament to be Dissolved on 15th November. Any election announcement would likely be a week earlier. How likely is that?
Pretty likely if May needs it, otherwise there will be a general election in January or February
CU for the whole UK is not full SM but EVEN if what you say is true and what Barnier is effectively proposing is Norway for the whole UK that does not change my argument. Norway is still preferred to Remain and No Deal and has a far higher net favourability. I know you will dismiss the polls but that is clear, ICM gives Norway a net favourability of +7%, Remain +1%, No Deal -33%.
So Norway beats Remain or No Deal but Remain beats No Deal.
As I said No Deal kills Brexit, No Deal means Brexit RIP
Exactly. Why are so few people saying this?
What is becoming clear this morning is that people are focussing on how absurd it is that the UK might actually sign up to the backstop and that May is looking ridiculous pretending a deal can be indefinite and temporary at the same time. No deal is looking more and more likely.
Either way there is no way we Brexit with No Deal
You are rather bravely excluding 'cock-up' from your scenarios......
When the PM, the Leader of the Opposition and Parliament opposes No Deal there is no way it can be the ultimate outcome of Brexit
You assume, bravely, that all are in command of their fates.
The law has been passed. We will leave the EU at 23.00 on the 29th of March. Unless something else happens.
I wouldn't put too much faith in one line in the Mail on Sunday. Even if that is true, it is entirely possible that a fresh General Election results in another deadlocked parliament - the 'meaningful vote' does not need to take place until January (and we know Mrs May's motto is 'why do today what you can put off until tomorrow?') - if that fails we have to get through the FTPA and the new requirement that a GE campaign is 25 working days excluding public holidays. So we could be having a GE in late February/early March. Why would the EU unanimously grant an extension to a country that is struggling to govern itself?
Their preferred position is that we don’t leave, but that we stop fannying about and take our place again as sensible contributors to the polity of Europe..
I fear we are many years away from being able to do that......
What that question is really asking is: "With hindsight, did you expect the UK Prime Minister to put up such an abject performance when negotiating the terms of the UK's exit from the EU?"
We are where we are because voters were promised an undeliverable Brexit. May’s absurd triggering of A50 and ridiculous red lines compounded that, but the essential truth is that contrary to the claims of the Buccaneering Brexiteers it is impossible to have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides.
It would be perfectly possible if the UK had started off with a robust negotiating position rather than throwing concessions away like a jellyfish. In the 2017 election Labour as well as the Conservatives promised to negotiate for a very different outcome than the BINO outcome which May has sought. As for the supposed benefits of EU membership, all the features commonly cited are those of mutual interest and as such easily achievable by reciprocal agreement. For example mutual agreements on health treatment, or cross border cooperation on policing. That just leaves us with the costs then.
How do you have seamless,cross-border, just in time supply chains without some form of customs union? How do British citizens retain their current rights to live, work and settle in EU member states without reciprocity?
How can someone who is a political editor for a major network be so stupid?
The UK charges EU CET on non-EU imports. Once out of the customs union, we can set whatever tariffs we like, including zero across the board, as long as the same tariffs applies to all MFN nations.
There is NO WTO schedule of tariffs.
We do have our WTO schedule of tariffs. The key point is, absent a preferential trade agreement we need to charge the same to the EU as to everyone else. If we keep tariffs on third country imports, we need to do the same for the EU. Alternatively we remove them for everyone and expose our companies to full competition. In that case our exports to the EU and third countries will get the highest tariffs because no-one has any incentive to agree a PTA with us. They have already got what they want from us without any concessions. And don't expect other countries to roll over their EU trade deals for the UK, just to be nice.
Oh no, there will either be a second referendum before 31st March 2019 if No Deal, Parliament will always vote for EUref2 over No Deal, we know that Tory MPs like Rudd have said they will switch to backing a 'people's vote' rather than accept No Deal which would give a 'People's vote' a comfortable Commons majority. Remain would then win that referendum over No Deal and Brexit will be cancelled.
Or if May cannot get her deal through Parliament in November she may well call a general election before Christmas which she will either win with a majority for her Deal or Corbyn will win with enough MPs to become PM and will then almost replicate her plan as Labour's policy is for the whole UK to stay in a Customs Union.
Either way there is no way we Brexit with No Deal
Parliament cannot just vote for an EURef2. It has to be proposed by the Government. There is zero chance this will happen. Nobody wants it, or needs it.
Tory MPs will not activate the FTPA because they know they will probably lose. May will not call a GE because the cabinet would remove her in about five minutes if she tried. Frankly, the way she is going, they are going to do that anyway.
Although I think Raab might be PM if he resigns, it is looking like the Cabinet would accept DD as interim leader to deal with May's stuffup.
I have been telling people for days that the backstop on its own is impossible to sell, before we even get to the 'political declaration'. So it is proving.
What that question is really asking is: "With hindsight, did you expect the UK Prime Minister to put up such an abject performance when negotiating the terms of the UK's exit from the EU?"
We are where we are because voters were promised an undeliverable Brexit. May’s absurd triggering of A50 and ridiculous red lines compounded that, but the essential truth is that contrary to the claims of the Buccaneering Brexiteers it is impossible to have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides.
You are signing up to the concept that Article 50 is a con - once in, you can never leave.
Which is exactly why we have to leave.
Of course we can leave. We are leaving. What we can’t do is leave on the terms the Buccaneering Brexiteers promised us.
CU for the whole UK is not full SM but EVEN if what you say is true and what Barnier is effectively proposing is Norway for the whole UK that does not change my argument. Norway is still preferred to Remain and No Deal and has a far higher net favourability. I know you will dismiss the polls but that is clear, ICM gives Norway a net favourability of +7%, Remain +1%, No Deal -33%.
So Norway beats Remain or No Deal but Remain beats No Deal.
As I said No Deal kills Brexit, No Deal means Brexit RIP
Exactly. Why are so few people saying this?
Well if few people are saying it, that ie is no way we Brexit with No Deal
You are rather bravely excluding 'cock-up' from your scenarios......
When the PM, the Leader of the Opposition and Parliament opposes No Deal there is no way it can be the ultimate outcome of Brexit
You assume, bravely, that all are in command of their fates.
The law has been passed. We will leave the EU at 23.00 on the 29th of March. Unless something else happens.
I wouldn't put too much faith in one line in the Mail on Sunday. Even if that is true, it is entirely possible that a fresh General Election results in another deadlocked parliament - the 'meaningful vote' does not need to take place until January (and we know Mrs May's motto is 'why do today what you can put off until tomorrow?') - if that fails we have to get through the FTPA and the new requirement that a GE campaign is 25 working days excluding public holidays. So we could be having a GE in late February/early March. Why would the EU unanimously grant an extension to a country that is struggling to govern itself?
If No Deal was on the cards Parliament would then either vote for as swift EUref2 before the end of March which would see Remain win and cancel Brexit anyway so no further need for the EU to do anything, we stay in the EU.
Or Parliament would vote to Leave via the EFTA route and take the Norway option rather than Leave with No Deal
CU for the whole UK is not full SM but EVEN if what you say is true and what Barnier is effectively proposing is Norway for the whole UK that does not change my argument. Norway is still preferred to Remain and No Deal and has a far higher net favourability. I know you will dismiss the polls but that is clear, ICM gives Norway a net favourability of +7%, Remain +1%, No Deal -33%.
So Norway beats Remain or No Deal but Remain beats No Deal.
As I said No Deal kills Brexit, No Deal means Brexit RIP
Exactly. Why are so few people saying this?
Well if few people are saying it, that is way we Brexit with No Deal
You are rather bravely excluding 'cock-up' from your scenarios......
When the PM, the Leader of the Opposition and Parliament opposes No Deal there is no way it can be the ultimate outcome of Brexit
You assume, bravely, that all are in command of their fates.
The law has been passed. We will leave the EU at 23.00 on the 29th of March. Unless something else happens.
I wouldn't put too much faith in one line in the Mail on Sunday. Even if that is true, it is entirely possible that a fresh General Election results in another deadlocked parliament - the 'meaningful vote' does not need to take place until January (and we know Mrs May's motto is 'why do today what you can put off until tomorrow?') - if that fails we have to get through the FTPA and the new requirement that a GE campaign is 25 working days excluding public holidays. So we could be having a GE in late February/early March. Why would the EU unanimously grant an extension to a country that is struggling to govern itself?
If No Deal was on the cards Parliament would then either vote for a swift EUref2 before the end of March which would see Remain win and cancel Brexit anyway so no further need for the EU to do anything, we stay in the EU.
Or Parliament would vote to Leave via the EFTA route and take the Norway option rather than Leave with No Deal
CU for the whole UK is not full SM but EVEN if what you say is true and what Barnier is effectively proposing is Norway for the whole UK that does not change my argument. Norway is still preferred to Remain and No Deal and has a far higher net favourability. I know you will dismiss the polls but that is clear, ICM gives Norway a net favourability of +7%, Remain +1%, No Deal -33%.
So Norway beats Remain or No Deal but Remain beats No Deal.
As I said No Deal kills Brexit, No Deal means Brexit RIP
Exactly. Why are so few people saying this?
What is becoming clear this morning is that people are focussing on how absurd it is that the UK might actually sign up to the backstop and that May is looking ridiculous pretending a deal can be indefinite and temporary at the same time. No deal is looking more and more likely.
Either way there is no way we Brexit with No Deal
You are rather bravely excluding 'cock-up' from your scenarios......
When the PM, the Leader of the Opposition and Parliament opposes No Deal there is no way it can be the ultimate outcome of Brexit
You assume, bravely, that all are in command of their fates.
The law has been passed. We will leave the EU at 23.00 on the 29th of March. Unless something else happens.
I wouldn't put too much faith in one line in the Mail on Sunday. Even if that is true, it is entirely possible that a fresh General Election results in another deadlocked parliament - the 'meaningful vote' does not need to take place until January (and we know Mrs May's motto is 'why do today what you can put off until tomorrow?') - if that fails we have to get through the FTPA and the new requirement that a GE campaign is 25 working days excluding public holidays. So we could be having a GE in late February/early March. Why would the EU unanimously grant an extension to a country that is struggling to govern itself?
Their preferred position is that we don’t leave, but that we stop fannying about and take our place again as sensible contributors to the polity of Europe..
I fear we are many years away from being able to do that......
Indeed. It may well require, at the very least, that we have new leaders of three of the main parties. Certainly of those campaigning outside Scotland!
The voters backed Leave then but only by a 4% margin and with Leave leading most polls a fortnight before the vote, the voters comfortably oppose No Deal now in EVERY poll asked.
You are wrong. If you take the last 14 polls published between the murder of Jo Cox and polling day, Remain led by an average of 3%. That is why Remain was expected to win. So with Leave securing a margin of 4%, those polls then were way out.
'You might wonder why reasonable people can't reach an agreement on what we should do next. The answer is that they know there is no way Brexit can be implimented without inflicting enormous damage on our country'
I paraphrase from Dominic Grieve.
Could be worse. If Blair had been PM we would have had to go through a phase when we had a Brexit Czar.
If Blair was still PM we wouldn't have been in this particular mess as he wasn't as stupid as to have a referendum in the first place, and if he had been forced to have one, would have been damn sure that he would have won it.
Blair and Brown would have put a threshold on any vote.
TBH if we’d had a threshold.... say minimum 60% for a change........ the madder Leavers would be trying for another one. Look at Scotland!
You trying to say that anyone wanting independence for Scotland is mad. We had a fixed referendum in Scotland the first time, when they counted the dead as No's. No democracy for Scotland in UK is the norm.
No, Malc, of course not. I’m saying that the Nationalists in Scotland aren’t giving up and in their determination they can be compared with people like Boris. Sad perhaps, but in politics the line between determination and fanaticism can be narrow.
Anyway, how were the dead counted as nos? Do you mean that it had to be whatever percentage of the electoral register? If so, how old was that register?
The original one in the 70's they counted the full population on the register as you say and anyone not voting or who had died in interim was counted as NO. It was a fix. Westminster have form on this sort of stuff, only difference here is that as England has majority of voters they can vote them out, we have no such luck.
Oh no, there will either be a second referendum before 31st March 2019 if No Deal, Parliament will always vote for EUref2 over No Deal, we know that Tory MPs like Rudd have said they will switch to backing a 'people's vote' rather than accept No Deal which would give a 'People's vote' a comfortable Commons majority. Remain would then win that referendum over No Deal and Brexit will be cancelled.
Or if May cannot get her deal through Parliament in November she may well call a general election before Christmas which she will either win with a majority for her Deal or Corbyn will win with enough MPs to become PM and will then almost replicate her plan as Labour's policy is for the whole UK to stay in a Customs Union.
Either way there is no way we Brexit with No Deal
Parliament cannot just vote for an EURef2. It has to be proposed by the Government. There is zero chance this will happen. Nobody wants it, or needs it.
Tory MPs will not activate the FTPA because they know they will probably lose. May will not call a GE because the cabinet would remove her in about five minutes if she tried. Frankly, the way she is going, they are going to do that anyway.
Although I think Raab might be PM if he resigns, it is looking like the Cabinet would accept DD as interim leader to deal with May's stuffup.
I have been telling people for days that the backstop on its own is impossible to sell, before we even get to the 'political declaration'. So it is proving.
But you keep dreaming about your referendum.
May will have called a general election a month or two after November if she fails to get a mandate for her deal, that new Parliament will then either give her a mandate for her deal or will see Corbyn as PM. If Corbyn is PM and cannot swiftly agree a new majority the new Labour + SNP majority as their conferences made clear would vote for EUref2 with the LDs which Remain would win rather than No Deal Brexit.
You fail to realise it is not Remainers who are dicing with Death it is diehard Brexiteers, if you fail to get any sort of Deal through in November then Brexit may well not happen at all.
The idea the likes of Soubry and Wollaston and Rudd and Grieve and Ken Clarke etc will vote for a Davis coronation and No Deal Brexit is laughable, if Davis has no proposals to agree the backstop they will vote with Labour for a general election or EUref2 rather than No Deal
Sugar is the purest carbohydrate. It rots your teeth and gives you diabetes.
So does fudge.
You saying if there’s national ref with fudge on ballot fudge won’t win?
I’m quite relaxed. Glad it’s all finally over (bar routing of ERG in commons votes and ref2) We clearly have a deal. We are not leaving CU next year, probably never, and no deal and hard Brexit has gone the way of the dodo, it’s no longer part of the equation.
In terms of the 2nd ref that seals this deal for generations to come, it’s daft to think of it as people’s vote, people’s vote has joined no deal suppering with the dodo now we have a deal, Remain ain’t sneaking on the ballot. I ask you to think of the ‘75 ballot, support this deal yes or no. I can even tell you the date we are having it, 21st of March.
So who would actually decide the wording of ref 2 ballot? If it’s proposed by executive and voted on by parliament, the winning wording is just as I just described is it not?
Right, let’s get those i luv fudge t shirts printed.
Interesting perspective from Brazil - the people who voted for the right wing populist are the better educated, better off, younger, not the 'old, thick & poor' commonly perceived to be behind 'populism':
Interesting perspective from Brazil - the people who voted for the right wing populist are the better educated, better off, younger, not the 'old, thick & poor' commonly perceived to be behind 'populism':
'You might wonder why reasonable people can't reach an agreement on what we should do next. The answer is that they know there is no way Brexit can be implimented without inflicting enormous damage on our country'
I paraphrase from Dominic Grieve.
Could be worse. If Blair had been PM we would have had to go through a phase when we had a Brexit Czar.
If Blair was still PM we wouldn't have been in this particular mess as he wasn't as stupid as to have a referendum in the first place, and if he had been forced to have one, would have been damn sure that he would have won it.
Blair and Brown would have put a threshold on any vote.
TBH if we’d had a threshold.... say minimum 60% for a change........ the madder Leavers would be trying for another one. Look at Scotland!
You trying to say that anyone wanting independence for Scotland is mad. We had a fixed referendum in Scotland the first time, when they counted the dead as No's. No democracy for Scotland in UK is the norm.
No, Malc, of course not. I’m saying that the Nationalists in Scotland aren’t giving up and in their determination they can be compared with people like Boris. Sad perhaps, but in politics the line between determination and fanaticism can be narrow.
Anyway, how were the dead counted as nos? Do you mean that it had to be whatever percentage of the electoral register? If so, how old was that register?
The original one in the 70's they counted the full population on the register as you say and anyone not voting or who had died in interim was counted as NO. It was a fix. Westminster have form on this sort of stuff, only difference here is that as England has majority of voters they can vote them out, we have no such luck.
Interesting perspective from Brazil - the people who voted for the right wing populist are the better educated, better off, younger, not the 'old, thick & poor' commonly perceived to be behind 'populism':
The voters backed Leave then but only by a 4% margin and with Leave leading most polls a fortnight before the vote, the voters comfortably oppose No Deal now in EVERY poll asked.
You are wrong. If you take the last 14 polls published between the murder of Jo Cox and polling day, Remain led by an average of 3%. That is why Remain was expected to win. So with Leave securing a margin of 4%, those polls then were way out.
YouGov has Remain ahead by 10% over No Deal Brexit, even with the same error as 2016 (and they now are able to use the 2016 sample figures) Remain would still win confortably
Oh no, there will either be a second referendum before 31st March 2019 if No Deal, Parliament will always vote for EUref2 over No Deal, we know that Tory MPs like Rudd have said they will switch to backing a 'people's vote' rather than accept No Deal which would give a 'People's vote' a comfortable Commons majority. Remain would then win that referendum over No Deal and Brexit will be cancelled.
Or if May cannot get her deal through Parliament in November she may well call a general election before Christmas which she will either win with a majority for her Deal or Corbyn will win with enough MPs to become PM and will then almost replicate her plan as Labour's policy is for the whole UK to stay in a Customs Union.
Either way there is no way we Brexit with No Deal
Parliament cannot just vote for an EURef2. It has to be proposed by the Government. There is zero chance this will happen. Nobody wants it, or needs it.
Tory MPs will not activate the FTPA because they know they will probably lose. May will not call a GE because the cabinet would remove her in about five minutes if she tried. Frankly, the way she is going, they are going to do that anyway.
Although I think Raab might be PM if he resigns, it is looking like the Cabinet would accept DD as interim leader to deal with May's stuffup.
I have been telling people for days that the backstop on its own is impossible to sell, before we even get to the 'political declaration'. So it is proving.
But you keep dreaming about your referendum.
May will have called a general election a month or two after November if she fails to get a mandate
Why November? The meaningful vote does not need to take place until late January.
The difficulty from the very beginning has been how to find an arrangement that simultaneously worked with the EU, satisfied the Conservative party and was capable of commanding a majority in the Commons. One way of looking at the last 28 months of Brexit torture is as a protracted and painful education in the impossibility of finding a satisfactory solution to this conundrum. Another way of looking at the last 28 months is as a long and expensive education for Britain that any deal is going to be suboptimal, because there is no deal with the EU that is better than the terms we currently enjoy as members. Any number of cabinet resignations are not going to change that.
Oh no, there will either be a second referendum before 31st March 2019 if No Deal, Parliament will always vote for EUref2 over No Deal, we know that Tory MPs like Rudd have said they will switch to backing a 'people's vote' rather than accept No Deal which would give a 'People's vote' a comfortable Commons majority. Remain would then win that referendum over No Deal and Brexit will be cancelled.
Or if May cannot get her deal through Parliament in November she may well call a general election before Christmas which she will either win with a majority for her Deal or Corbyn will win with enough MPs to become PM and will then almost replicate her plan as Labour's policy is for the whole UK to stay in a Customs Union.
Either way there is no way we Brexit with No Deal
Parliament cannot just vote for an EURef2. It has to be proposed by the Government. There is zero chance this will happen. Nobody wants it, or needs it.
Tory MPs will not activate the FTPA because they know they will probably lose. May will not call a GE because the cabinet would remove her in about five minutes if she tried. Frankly, the way she is going, they are going to do that anyway.
Although I think Raab might be PM if he resigns, it is looking like the Cabinet would accept DD as interim leader to deal with May's stuffup.
I have been telling people for days that the backstop on its own is impossible to sell, before we even get to the 'political declaration'. So it is proving.
But you keep dreaming about your referendum.
May will have called a general election a month or two after November if she fails to get a mandate
Why November? The meaningful vote does not need to take place until late January.
So what? Any deal will have to be agreed by the end of November and she will call the vote shortly after
May will have called a general election a month or two after November if she fails to get a mandate for her deal, that new Parliament will then either give her a mandate for her deal or will see Corbyn as PM. If Corbyn is PM and cannot swiftly agree a new majority the new Labour + SNP majority as their conferences made clear would vote for EUref2 with the LDs which Remain would win rather than No Deal Brexit.
You fail to realise it is not Remainers who are dicing with Death it is diehard Brexiteers, if you fail to get any sort of Deal through in November then Brexit may well not happen at all.
The idea the likes of Soubry and Wollaston and Rudd and Grieve and Ken Clarke etc will vote for a Davis coronation and No Deal Brexit is laughable, if has no proposals to agree the backstop they will vote with Labour for a general election or EUref2 rather than No Deal
Nobody has to vote for No Deal.
The only way there will be a GE is if the DUP no confidence the Government. Which is looking more likely than any of your fantasies.
We are not talking about diehard Brexit. We are talking about a Conservative and Unionist Party PM trying to undermine the Union. Even Ruth Davidson is threatening to resign if she does this.
I notice you still have not answered the question as to whether you agree with this....much easier to just avoid the point I suppose.
If one part of the UK was in the CU and another not, isn’t that entirely the kind of classic British fudge that we used to be able to play to our advantage. Isn’t it potentially beneficial being able to straddle two worlds, picking and choosing which one to play in on a case by case basis?
Not if it threatens the integrity of the UK. Which it would.
Brexit threatens the integrity of the UK. Already sentiment in Northern Ireland for a United Ireland has gone from very small to nearly half and within striking distance of winning a border poll. The NI backstop as as guarantee of a soft border is supported by the majority of Northern Irish. The DUP are in a minority. The DUP IMO made a catastrophic mistake from their interest by going all in on Brexit. The status quo is their friend. I guess they found the prospect of a hard land border too appealing to pass up.
Interesting perspective from Brazil - the people who voted for the right wing populist are the better educated, better off, younger, not the 'old, thick & poor' commonly perceived to be behind 'populism':
Yes, the Brazilian electorate is different to the UK one. Who knew?
Many have lazily assumed that the factors behind "the rise of populism" share common features (Trump, Brexit) - interesting (to some of us, at any rate) to see alternatives.
Interesting perspective from Brazil - the people who voted for the right wing populist are the better educated, better off, younger, not the 'old, thick & poor' commonly perceived to be behind 'populism':
Yes, the Brazilian electorate is different to the UK one. Who knew?
Many have lazily assumed that the factors behind "the rise of populism" share common features (Trump, Brexit) - interesting (to some of us, at any rate) to see alternatives.
Trump did very well among wealthy Americans in 2016. Support for Corbyn is high among those with degrees.
Oh no, there will either be a second referendum before 31st March 2019 if No Deal, Parliament will always vote for EUref2 over No Deal, we know that Tory MPs like Rudd have said they will switch to backing a 'people's vote' rather than accept No Deal which would give a 'People's vote' a comfortable Commons majority. Remain would then win that referendum over No Deal and Brexit will be cancelled.
Or if May cannot get her deal through Parliament in November she may well call a general election before Christmas which she will either win with a majority for her Deal or Corbyn will win with enough MPs to become PM and will then almost replicate her plan as Labour's policy is for the whole UK to stay in a Customs Union.
Either way there is no way we Brexit with No Deal
Parliament cannot just vote for an EURef2. It has to be proposed by the Government. There is zero chance this will happen. Nobody wants it, or needs it.
Tory MPs will not activate the FTPA because they know they will probably lose. May will not call a GE because the cabinet would remove her in about five minutes if she tried. Frankly, the way she is going, they are going to do that anyway.
Although I think Raab might be PM if he resigns, it is looking like the Cabinet would accept DD as interim leader to deal with May's stuffup.
I have been telling people for days that the backstop on its own is impossible to sell, before we even get to the 'political declaration'. So it is proving.
But you keep dreaming about your referendum.
May will have called a general election a month or two after November if she fails to get a mandate
Why November? The meaningful vote does not need to take place until late January.
So what? Any deal will have to be agreed by the end of November and she will call the vote shortly after
Will she? Why would she call a vote she might lose? Why not put it off until she might win?
Comments
If there is No Deal followed by an EU referendum Remain wins they can then get back to what they enjoy most and Nige can go back to leading UKIP or its successor!
So Norway beats Remain or No Deal but Remain beats No Deal.
As I said No Deal kills Brexit, No Deal means Brexit RIP
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-1433170798
And this guy is running the health service?
This strikes me as self evident which is why it is self evident that the back stop agreement was an unacceptable mistake. Foster said so at the time so the wording was changed but the EU maintain that the change in wording made no difference. MRDA.
May herself has said that no Prime Minister of the United Kingdom can enter into a deal which disrupts the integrity of the United Kingdom. She was right. No deal with the EU can be permitted to do that. So the options are either the whole of the UK comes into some form of CU with the EU or none of us does. In the latter scenario we can and should do everything to mitigate the extent of disruption caused by a land border between the EU and the UK but it is absurd to pretend that that border will not be more significant than it is today when both sides are in a SM, CU and subject to CJEU determination of any disputes that arise. That's what leaving means.
It seems to me that the EU either accept that or they don't. It is their choice and we can't make them accept it. If they don't then I don't see how an overarching deal will be possible. If we cannot agree on the existence of a border between the EU and the UK then agreement on the terms of trade etc would be impossible. In such a scenario the UK government must do as much as it can to mitigate the absence of a deal so we should be looking for as many mini deals as possible dealing with transport, planes, tariffs, respect for pre-existing residency rights, mutual recognition of certification of standards for medicines, goods etc. Again, the EU cannot be compelled to agree any of this but it is in their interests to do so and we can be hopeful that they will.
What is not a sensible option is people like Hancock (who really should need a note from his mum before being allowed to do interviews) trying to pretend that there is not an issue here and that we can find some magical wording that gives both sides what they say they currently want. Firstly, its not true. Secondly, it is a completely crap way of negotiating and suggests that we are the ones who will give in. But we can't.
Should I be upping my stake on David Davis this rainy morning?
There is never going to be a second referendum on Remain/Leave, no matter how much HYUFD repeats it. The Government will never propose it, and on that basis it cannot happen. It will not solve anything. And the moment that we leave on 31 March 2019, it is too late.
What is becoming clear this morning is that people are focussing on how absurd it is that the UK might actually sign up to the backstop and that May is looking ridiculous pretending a deal can be indefinite and temporary at the same time. No deal is looking more and more likely.
Submitting to regulatory annexation isn't 'British fudge'. It's EU imperialism.
Look at Scotland!
There is a reason that EEA nations are not in the CU.
Hannan has a good article today which sets it out, if people want to learn more:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/10/14/brexit-theresa-mays-terms-would-worst-worlds/
Or if May cannot get her deal through Parliament in November she may well call a general election before Christmas which she will either win with a majority for her Deal or Corbyn will win with enough MPs to become PM and will then almost replicate her plan as Labour's policy is for the whole UK to stay in a Customs Union.
Either way there is no way we Brexit with No Deal
"With hindsight, did you expect the UK Prime Minister to put up such an abject performance when negotiating the terms of the UK's exit from the EU?"
Rather than moaning and blame seeking I suggest you start getting used to the idea that when we leave, Ireland's membership of the EU means it is now the more powerful of the two governments in these islands.
There is also a clear majority in the Commons for EUref2 or Norway over No Deal.
When the PM, the Leader of the Opposition and Parliament and the majority of voters ALL oppose No Deal there is no way it can be the ultimate outcome of Brexit
And if Viktor Orban decides he won't play ball?
"Nobody voted Brexit to make themselves poorer" they tell us. But we did. The illuminati, the great and the good, told us incessantly before we voted that Brexit makes us poorer. Nevertheless that is how we voted.
A "temporary backstop" is the latest wheeze of recalcitrant Tory remainers, but it is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. A backstop cannot, by definition, be time limited. The very idea reveals their desperation to renege on the referendum.
Coveney, Varadkar and Barnier have pulled the wool over our team's eyes. The GFA should not have had any role in the Brexit negotiations. Instead it appears to be the fulcrum on which the whole thing balances.
Brexit is our fault, not theirs.
https://twitter.com/insidersabc/status/1051243723378421760?s=21
Sad perhaps, but in politics the line between determination and fanaticism can be narrow.
Anyway, how were the dead counted as nos? Do you mean that it had to be whatever percentage of the electoral register? If so, how old was that register?
Which is exactly why we have to leave.
The law has been passed. We will leave the EU at 23.00 on the 29th of March. Unless something else happens.
I wouldn't put too much faith in one line in the Mail on Sunday. Even if that is true, it is entirely possible that a fresh General Election results in another deadlocked parliament - the 'meaningful vote' does not need to take place until January (and we know Mrs May's motto is 'why do today what you can put off until tomorrow?') - if that fails we have to get through the FTPA and the new requirement that a GE campaign is 25 working days excluding public holidays. So we could be having a GE in late February/early March. Why would the EU unanimously grant an extension to a country that is struggling to govern itself?
Of course we can leave. We are leaving. At massive cost and decades of waste.
Not one poll has No Deal preferred to Remain or ANY other Brexit option.
Parliament in any case will prefer a general election, EUref 2 or ultimately the Norway option over No Deal
Tory MPs will not activate the FTPA because they know they will probably lose. May will not call a GE because the cabinet would remove her in about five minutes if she tried. Frankly, the way she is going, they are going to do that anyway.
Although I think Raab might be PM if he resigns, it is looking like the Cabinet would accept DD as interim leader to deal with May's stuffup.
I have been telling people for days that the backstop on its own is impossible to sell, before we even get to the 'political declaration'. So it is proving.
But you keep dreaming about your referendum.
Here if you don't believe me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
You fail to realise it is not Remainers who are dicing with Death it is diehard Brexiteers, if you fail to get any sort of Deal through in November then Brexit may well not happen at all.
The idea the likes of Soubry and Wollaston and Rudd and Grieve and Ken Clarke etc will vote for a Davis coronation and No Deal Brexit is laughable, if Davis has no proposals to agree the backstop they will vote with Labour for a general election or EUref2 rather than No Deal
I’m quite relaxed. Glad it’s all finally over (bar routing of ERG in commons votes and ref2) We clearly have a deal. We are not leaving CU next year, probably never, and no deal and hard Brexit has gone the way of the dodo, it’s no longer part of the equation.
In terms of the 2nd ref that seals this deal for generations to come, it’s daft to think of it as people’s vote, people’s vote has joined no deal suppering with the dodo now we have a deal, Remain ain’t sneaking on the ballot. I ask you to think of the ‘75 ballot, support this deal yes or no. I can even tell you the date we are having it, 21st of March.
So who would actually decide the wording of ref 2 ballot? If it’s proposed by executive and voted on by parliament, the winning wording is just as I just described is it not?
Right, let’s get those i luv fudge t shirts printed.
https://twitter.com/yazzarf/status/1049259004441108480
I'm going for a (wet) Sunday walk, and a pub lunch by the river. Delightful.
Their choice is a right wing demagogue, or a guy whose party leader is in prison for corruption.
YouGov has Remain ahead by 10% over No Deal Brexit, even with the same error as 2016 (and they now are able to use the 2016 sample figures) Remain would still win confortably
http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-voters-would-rather-remain-in-eu-than-accept-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-7
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/14/will-mrs-may-bastards-risk-destroying-their-own-government
The only way there will be a GE is if the DUP no confidence the Government. Which is looking more likely than any of your fantasies.
We are not talking about diehard Brexit. We are talking about a Conservative and Unionist Party PM trying to undermine the Union. Even Ruth Davidson is threatening to resign if she does this.
I notice you still have not answered the question as to whether you agree with this....much easier to just avoid the point I suppose.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/14/eu-leaders-line-up-no-deal-emergency-brexit-summit-for-november