No Deal supporters? Can you see any downsides? If so, why are these outweighed by the upsides.

[bellinisurge]

Genuine question. I was prepared to accept WA but that was apparently not sufficient. So, why is No Deal better?

Back in the 70's and 80's, I remember the exodus of nationalists from the north every year. The seaside town I lived in was full of NI cars and caravans for the full month of July as the marching season was so dangerous and intimidating.

The only reason the influx slowed was the availability of cheap package holidays abroad so fewer coming down to the Republic.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu_referendum_2016_/3628698-no-deal-supporters-can-you-see-any-downsides-if-so-why-are-these-outweighed-by-the-upsides?pg=12#

The map shows which constituencies voted leave. Mostly England and Wales, part of NI and zero in Scotland.

A United Ireland, an Independent Scotland and England and Wales leaving the EU seems to be the future.

And you think that's ok do you? From thousands of miles away in the Far East playing armchair "Risk". There has always been different voting patterns across the UK ffs.

On a constituency basis Scotland voted 100% to remain. Vastly different to the rest of UK. So Scotland don't want the same things as rest of UK. Sounds a good enough reason for Scotland to go independent. Bit like people divorcing when their visions for the future don't align.

This desire to break up the union is a new thing for you. Have you just discovered it. How about proroguing Parliament. There's another new intellectual toy for you to tinker with from the comfort of thousands of miles away. Should we do that too?

How about proroguing Parliament

BoJo has said it might happen, but a bad idea. That's not leadership, but dictatorship. However, some might say that T May's decision to place the same deal in front of MPs three times was the same as saying

"its my way or Brexit is cancelled"

Johnson (not BoJo ffs) has said all kinds of shit. So you only believe the bits you like.

To equate TM's actions with dictatorship is quite disgusting.

Agreeing the WA before passing it through MPs was dictatorship in my view.

Asking the same question over and over, but looking for different response can be considered insanity?

Since the WA is NOT the deal, but primarily an outline of the PROCESS it should have been passed.
It was obvious from the questions in the HoC that very few had actually read and understood the WA and more importantly understood that it was NOT the deal. It only lays the ground rules so that for each particular piece of legislation (of around 700 items) when the UK leaves the situation will be XYZ. The accompanying Political Document which CAN be rewritten, outlines which of the 700 are either enacted (leaving) or could be retained (as part of a trade package for example) or whether the UK would like to retain that bit of legislation. The PD also specifies when the change would come about, although the proposal was that it would be at the end of the transition period.
Thus, the WA is the 'club rules for departing members. The HoC and cabinet do not like it because there is no 'cake' for the UK. The way that Theresa was somewhat secretive and the knobends who didn't engage with the EU during the writing of the WA (D Davies and Raab) just made the situation a lot worse.
The UK was expecting to leave all it's responsibilities to the EU but retain all the benefits. It isn't going to happen.

Had D Davies actually done his job, the WA would have been pretty similar to the one that is on the table as the aims are the same.

To equate TM's actions with dictatorship is quite disgusting.

Yes, I agree. This person is not a patriot.

No time for May personally but I think she approached Brexit as a matter of public duty and delivered what was probably the best deal achievable after her early errors (the red lines).

There is a good percentage of Leavers who cry "democracy " while simultaneously complaining about and trying to override our parliamentary process.

@LifeContinues - Agreeing the WA before passing it through MPs was dictatorship in my view.

How on earth do you think international negotiations actually work? You don't check every word with parliament before agreement. You negotiate a deal and then go back to see does parliament agree.

Certainly the negotiators should take the views of parliament on board in the negotiations. However, that was done. Otherwise her ridiculous red lines and putting all of the UK in the backstop, rather than just NI, would not have happened.

The red lines were necessary to deliver the leave that UK voted for.

Sometimes negotiations result in no agreement so the two sides walk away and the subject is closed. To enter a negotiation on the basis that you must make a deal regardless is suicidal. Hands all the cards to the other side.

Bit like putting your house for sale and telling prospective buyers that you will sell regardless of the offer made.

@@LifeContinues - The red lines were necessary to deliver the leave that UK voted for.

Really? Where, exactly, in the referendum question were voters what type of leave they wanted?

Sometimes negotiations result in no agreement so the two sides walk away and the subject is closed. To enter a negotiation on the basis that you must make a deal regardless is suicidal. Hands all the cards to the other side.

Except in this instance, not making a deal is suicidal. Generally, if no deal is made and the parties walk away, the status quo remains.

Bit like putting your house for sale and telling prospective buyers that you will sell regardless of the offer made.

That assumes if you don't sell that you will continue to own and live in the house. It's more like saying I won't sell unless I like the offer but I will still move out and forfeit any rights to my house.

Generally, if no deal is made and the parties walk away, the status quo remains.

And indeed it seems that some proportion of the public think that this is what No Deal means when they say that they support it. Which is very convenient for the actual No Deal headbangers.

{And indeed it seems that some proportion of the public think that this is what No Deal means when they say that they support it.}

If the 'leave' campaign had been honest, they would have said that to leave will mean the Pound in your pocket will be worth about 90 pence, and there will be around a Million or more losses of decent paying jobs, how many would have voted for it when the upside would be a couple of intangibles like 'sovereignty' (that we never lost) and a small readjustment in the obscure parts of the legal system.

Where, exactly, in the referendum question were voters what type of leave they wanted?

Ballot paper was a binary choice between leave or remain. Remain, of course, only has one version. Leave permutations are almost limitless and could not be included on the ballot paper.

Except in this instance, not making a deal is suicidal

Back to the debate on whether people voted for tangible or intangible reasons.

Generally, if no deal is made and the parties walk away, the status quo remains

But in this case the decision to leave was voted in and Article 50 was voted in by 500+ MPs BEFORE negotiations started. Not possible for government to say;

"the deal offered by EU is poor therefore the vote to leave shall be ignored"

How many times did T May say no deal was better than a bad deal? Over a 100 times is the figure I keep hearing.

That assumes if you don't sell that you will continue to own and live in the house

That's a fact not an assumption. Of course if you don't sell your house you will remain as the owner. Who ever heard of someone who can't sell their house walking away and leaving the door open to that squatters can move in and claim it is their house?

If the 'leave' campaign had been honest

Back to the playground. Why is it losers always say they other side cheated.

Leave campaign presented the positives of leaving the UK. Whereas remain campaign seemed to concentrate on the negatives of leaving the EU as opposed to the benefits of remaining in the EU. Is that where remain got it wrong?

🐝

@LifeContinues

Ballot paper was a binary choice between leave or remain. Remain, of course, only has one version. Leave permutations are almost limitless and could not be included on the ballot paper.

Which makes a nonsense of your statement The red lines were necessary to deliver the leave that UK voted for

That's a fact not an assumption. Of course if you don't sell your house you will remain as the owner. Who ever heard of someone who can't sell their house walking away and leaving the door open to that squatters can move in and claim it is their house?

So you agree your analogy was nonsensical.

{Leave campaign presented the positives of leaving the UK}

And has failed to deliver any so far and in the process of trying to define what shape, size or colour a 'Brexit' might look like has devalued the Pound by around 6%, largely abandoned normal parliamentary processes and decisions, and has turned around one half of the UK population against the other half and forced the wasting of many Billions in the UK and across the EU into making preparations for something that may not have happened.

{Whereas remain campaign seemed to concentrate on the negatives of leaving the EU as opposed to the benefits of remaining in the EU. Is that where remain got it wrong?}

True, Cameron and the leaflet that was distributed made a fatal assumption that people might think about what might be the result if leaving. It seems that over 52% are more prepared to watch the twinkling lights on the Christmas tree rather than engage brain.

Which makes a nonsense of your statement The red lines were necessary to deliver the leave that UK voted for

How? You seem to forget that leave was decided before negotiations took place.

So you agree your analogy was nonsensical

Point was that if you reveal to the other side that you must make a deal then for sure the deal offered with be less favourable.

It seems that over 52% are more prepared to watch the twinkling lights on the Christmas tree rather than engage brain

Back to the assumption that leave voters did not know what they were voting for and that people will choose how to vote based on tangible benefits as opposed to intangible benefits.

@LifeContinues - How? You seem to forget that leave was decided before negotiations took place.

Leave could have taken many forms, including a Norway style model, which was touted by many. The red lines precluded many forms of leave. You stated that they were required to deliver the leave people voted for. As we don't know what type of leave was voted for, the red lines were presumptuous at best.

Point was that if you reveal to the other side that you must make a deal then for sure the deal offered with be less favourable.

That may well have been your point but your analogy was irrelevant to the situation. Your point about the other side knowing you need a deal may apply to many negotiations. However, in this instance, you would need to be an idiot to think no deal is a sensible option. Despite what parliament have voted, the EU have not ruled out no deal as an option. Huge level if preparation has been happening for just that eventuality.

The EU decided how far they could go. They compromised more than many consider to be reasonable but will go no further. If the UK crash out, so be it. We are prepared. Unfortunately, the UK is not prepared.