Those who said a few months back that a no-deal brexit would not happen no matter what

[StealthPolarBear]

and we were being ridiculous to worry about it, are you still as confident?

[Peregrina]

The DUP aren't in Coalition, so they don't have any Government posts.

[Bearbehind]

I said the government did.

Except they don’t because the DUP are not in government - only the Tories are.

[AlphaJura]

I have said all along that it will be no deal. It's the default if nothing happens. They are talking it up more and more now. Normalising it. Many people don't want it but the hardcore brexiters will just moan about the referendum being respected (many are so radicalised nothing else matters). Boris has said 'do or die'. Which I find quite abhorrent considering some people might die as a consequence of this.

[larrygrylls]

If you want a decent deal, you have to make no deal at least tolerable.

I was (and am) a ‘reluctant’ remainer but the idea that one of the richest countries in the world has to supplicate ourselves to the EU as if we had zero negotiating power is ridiculous.

Talking to ardent leavers about the brave new world we will enter when we leave is as strange as watching the religious remainers on this thread.

Leaving is certainly problematic and will hurt short term but remaining has many flaws too, not least that the EU (as is now) is a flawed concept with no successful historical precedent.

Leaving a failing trading bloc is not floating into the sea. Europe and the UK will continue to do business, as it is in everyone’s interests to do so.

There is rhetoric and reality. Those who want to punish the UK (very regrettable words from France) will soon change their mind as other European countries ‘interpret’ the new trading rules differently and are making good money doing business with us.

By the way, what does ‘no deal’ actually mean (as interpreted by the OP). To me there are as many ‘no deals’ as deals, from a sudden closing of borders to a temporary transition agreement which will be a ‘deal’ in all but name.

[Jason118]

*@larrygrylls *
If you want a decent deal, you have to make no deal at least tolerable.
No, this is just rubbish. In any negotiations you need to have knowledge of what is possible, not some fantasy wish list in order to make a deal.


I was (and am) a ‘reluctant’ remainer but the idea that one of the richest countries in the world has to supplicate ourselves to the EU as if we had zero negotiating power is ridiculous.
Supplicate? Really, you are having a laugh!

Talking to ardent leavers about the brave new world we will enter when we leave is as strange as watching the religious remainers on this thread. Facts, dear poster, facts.

Leaving is certainly problematic and will hurt short term but remaining has many flaws too, not least that the EU (as is now) is a flawed concept with no successful historical precedent. Opinion stated as fact, therefore bollocks.

Leaving a failing trading bloc is not floating into the sea. Europe and the UK will continue to do business, as it is in everyone’s interests to do so. Failing? Again bollocks.

There is rhetoric and reality. Those who want to punish the UK (very regrettable words from France) will soon change their mind as other European countries ‘interpret’ the new trading rules differently and are making good money doing business with us. Unicorn fantasy land. Single market anyone?

By the way, what does ‘no deal’ actually mean (as interpreted by the OP). To me there are as many ‘no deals’ as deals, from a sudden closing of borders to a temporary transition agreement which will be a ‘deal’ in all but name. There is one no deal - it means leaving on 31st October with no withdrawal agreement and therefore no transition unless our friends remaining in the EU decide to cut us some slack.

[Jason118]

iPad bold fail

[bellinisurge]

"religious remainers" I love all this attempt to twist criticism of Leavers on its head. Remainers are also "in a cult ".
As with everything BeLeaver No Deal bullshit, they like to convince themselves with narratives nicked from other points of view to reinforce their own. Like Trump talking about racism.

[HarveySchlumpfenburger]

temporary transition agreement which will be a ‘deal’ in all but name.

There’s no such thing. Pro-brexit MPs like to talk about this but it’s either lies or ignorance on their part. It’s possible that they’ve got confused with a number of emergency concessions the EU made to prepare for no deal in March. Some of these run out before 31st Oct, some will run out at the end of this year. I think most probably run out by March 2020. We’re entirely at the mercy of the EU as to whether they decide to continue helping us after that point. They don’t really have any obligation to do so.

[MindyStClaire]

The unionists don't give a shit about GFA, voted against it and would be happy to destroy it.

Just to clarify this post - the direct quote is from bellini, but a few posters were discussing similar upthread.

The DUP and unionists are not synonymous.

The DUP oppose the GFA and will never support a border in the sea (my understanding is that the border in the sea refers to goods and not people).

However, the unionist community voted about 60% in favour of the GFA in 1998. And I suspect support would be higher than that these days as it's been so successful.

I suspect a vote in NI on the border in the sea would pass. It's only the diehard DUPers who'd resist I think. Not sure if there's been any decent polling?

The electoral politics here means that a lot of DUP voters are only voting DUP so SF don't get in. Plenty of them would actually support equal marriage etc (although maybe fewer for abortion rights), most people wouldn't be nearly as extreme in their views as the DUP (or SF in the mirrored argument).

[Fraggling]

'The DUP oppose the GFA and will never support a border in the sea (my understanding is that the border in the sea refers to goods and not people).'

Where does the border for people go?

It's the people that were always the issue I thought, not goods.

Hard border between ni and ireland a nono
But
There has to be one if uk no longer part of eu

And i thought the reason people were against the backstop was in return for no hard border ni, fom continued across the piece

[Janista]

It almost certainly will be no deal.

[bellinisurge]

Actually @MindyStClaire , you are correct and I should have said tbe DUP don't give a shit about GFA. The unionist community in its entirety is NOT the DUP. I just despair that Sinn Fein and DUP are still the majority political voices for the respective communities.

[InTheHeatofLisbon]

The DUP and unionists are not synonymous.

That's what I meant but was made out to be stupid by Bear.

There's no way the DUP would accept a border in the sea, because they don't want to be separated from the rest of the UK. The ones who did participate in the GFA don't want it messed with, for obvious reasons, both unionist and nationalist so a border on land is out.

So as I said before, retaining things as they are on the island of Ireland is the only way to go. Which frankly anyone voting leave and the government should have considered before this ridiculous referendum.

[wheresmymojo]

I think we're seriously on for no deal now.

Now that Dominic Cummings is on board - if there's a way of getting around Parliament he'll find it. I don't like his politics but the man is very sharp.

I believe that Cummings & Geoffrey Cox between them will be able to find a plan that means Parliament run out of options to avoid no deal. I suspect they already have several options planned out and have 'war gamed' them all through.

[larrygrylls]

Rafals,

'We’re entirely at the mercy of the EU as to whether they decide to continue helping us after that point. They don’t really have any obligation to do so.'

This is the kind of comment that makes me view a certain coterie of remainers as really hating (or completely misunderstanding) the UK. What do you mean 'at the mercy of'? And 'helping us'. We both produce things that the others want and we both buy produce that the other needs to sell. We are not Zimbabwe or Somalia.

[InTheHeatofLisbon]

larrygrylls they don't have to trade with the UK, we need them more than they need us.

I think they've been pretty fair thus far, in the face of some really poisonous rhetoric and arrogance from the Leave campaign.

There is only one government who has behaved appallingly, and it isn't the other member states of the EU!

[larrygrylls]

Jason,

'No, this is just rubbish. In any negotiations you need to have knowledge of what is possible, not some fantasy wish list in order to make a deal.'

So, your preferred style of negotiation is what precisely? IS it 'we have nothing to offer and we need your humble help, please tell us what you want?' I suspect this is the sum of it.

' Failing? Again bollocks.*'

Evidence please?

www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPDPC@WEO/EU/EURO/EUQ/USA/GBR

A little chart of GDP per capita since 1980, from the IMF.

tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/central-bank-balance-sheet

A little chart of what is happening to the ECB balance sheet, as it continues to buy sovereign bonds to support the Euro. If Italy defaults (and this is not a vanishingly small probability) Germany is mainly on the hook for this. Do they want to massively bail out Italy, Greece etc. I don't think so.

So, unless you can supply me with argument instead of quasi-religious cant ('bollocks' for example), I will reiterate, Europe, as currently constructed, is a failing trading block.

'There is one no deal - it means leaving on 31st October with no withdrawal agreement and therefore no transition unless our friends remaining in the EU decide to cut us some slack.'

No there really isn't--and there you go again-'decide to cut us some slack'. You mean decide to allow us to continue to buy their BMWS and Mercedes etc, keeping the EU out of recession.

[larrygrylls]

'larrygrylls they don't have to trade with the UK, we need them more than they need us.'

To me, this is a fact, but a pretty meaningless one. It is like saying that the US can nuke North Korea more than North Korea can nuke the US. It is objectively true but no one wants a nuclear war.

We both need each other. If we really ceased trading completely tomorrow, it would be armageddon for both of us (albeit a 'worse' armagedon' for us, probably).

Can you imagine stopping trade with a country even 1/5 the size of the UK. It would be a major catastrophe.

[Songsofexperience]

To me there are as many ‘no deals’ as deals, from a sudden closing of borders to a temporary transition agreement which will be a ‘deal’ in all but name.

Problem is, there can't be any transition agreement of any kind without signature of the withdrawal agreement.
The nature and extent of disruptions depend therefore entirely on what the EU imagines is in its interest to grant the UK in such circumstances. You can be sure that any good will on the part of the EU would be lost for the foreseeable future and I wouldn't expect any favours from them going forward.

[InTheHeatofLisbon]

Can you imagine stopping trade with a country even 1/5 the size of the UK. It would be a major catastrophe.

Once again for the cheap seats at the back, the UK is not a country. It boggles my mind that people pretend to understand the politics in this but can't wrap their heads around this. The UK is an apparent union of 4 countries, not a country.

Secondly, the EU has 28 member states, all of whom will continue to trade with each other. If they chose to, they could lock the UK out of any of that. They hold all the cards, and have been more than generous in terms of offers on the table I think.

[InTheHeatofLisbon]

You can be sure that any good will on the part of the EU would be lost for the foreseeable future and I wouldn't expect any favours from them going forward.

This. I'm grateful they have been so reasonable thus far, in the face of extreme provocation from several mouthpieces in UK politics and the MSM.

[Jason118]

Larry, I see your evidence of GDP per capita and unless I'm reading it wrongly it shows a general trend of increasing GDP per capita, so I can't see how this is evidence at all? I'm no financial expert so there could be a nuance in there that I'm missing. If the ECB is propping up the EU coffers, isn't that one of its functions? I'm sure once we leave the EU, the BoE will be doing it on steroids to finance BJ's goodie bag.

[larrygrylls]

InTheHeat,

Country/union probably excites you far more than it excites me, but pedantry is always worth a shot when you do not have a good argument. We trade like a country and, no, the union will not break up when and if we Brexit.

And, for those sitting in the gods, they do not 'hold all the cards'. They have a trading surplus with us. They produce goods they need us to buy. This is not their charity, any more than it is Chinese charity to sell the US things that the US wants to buy.

In a trade negotiation, no one side holds all the cards unless one side really does not need the trade. They may be more powerful but it is not a zero sum game. It is in their interests as much as ours to have continued free flowing trade.

[Bearbehind]

The DUP oppose the GFA and will never support a border in the sea (my understanding is that the border in the sea refers to goods and not people).

That’s what we were discussing though - our minority government is being propped up by the DUP who don’t care about the GFA but do want to maintain the union (as far as it suits them).

That’s why we are in such a mess now - there’s no workable solution whilst the DUP have such influence and even if they weren’t calling the shots, a sea border would break up the union as Scotland would be off next.

[InTheHeatofLisbon]

Country/union probably excites you far more than it excites me, but pedantry is always worth a shot when you do not have a good argument

Pedantry? Oh you're one of those people who thinks England/UK/Britain is all the same thing. Bless.

Maybe if there had been a little more consideration for countries in the UK that aren't England we wouldn't be here would we? Are you one of the ones suddenly surprised by 800 + years of Anglo/Irish history too?

It may well be in their interests to continue trade, but if they chose not to there wouldn't be the immediate collapse there would be in the UK would there?

As I said, only one government has shown themselves up in this situation, to the rest of the world, and it's not the other member states.

They don't have to do anything, they don't owe us anything and they don't have to agree to anything.

Why people can't understand this is beyond me, it's hubris at best. Rank stupidity at worst.

The UK government is trying to make trade deals with China and Saudi.

When we had a perfectly good trade agreement with the EU which worked for everyone.

If it wasn't for stupidity we wouldn't have to be kowtowing to nations with horrendous human rights records for scraps.