Apparently there's still time to agree a deal before 19 october

[StealthPolarBear]

But wouldn't a deal have to be approved by parliament? Which is prorogued?
Sorry to keep asking stupid brexit questions, I find explanations on here extremely useful.

I'm back to think no deal. He'll pull some sort of fast one that means he doesn't have to ask for an extension and then crash out

There is likely a legal challenge. Law has been passed, but it still requires all 27 members to agree. If one refused then UK is forced out.

Alternatively there is nothing to force EU to agree same date as requested by UK. They can say the extension is too short. Nothing to prevent EU saying we want a 5 year extension. So how long UK continues to pay £1 Billion per month to EU can be controlled by EU.

So have MPs have sold the UK to the EU?

Flip side it increases pressure on UK to make a deal

• So how long UK continues to pay £1 Billion per month to EU can be controlled by EU.

So have MPs have sold the UK to the EU?*

Remember that the UK gets the benefits of being in a customs union and the single market, which more than pays back this money. That's a key point of being in the EU.

Anyway, regarding the DUP on their veto on the bounder and NI-only WA. Because of the 21 tories being expelled, the tories don't have a majority and there has to be an election shortly.

Doesn't this alter the power that the DUP have? If Johnson effectively says sod you to the DUP and goes with the NI-only WA and the EU agree, what can the DUP do? What effect would it have? It's not like they can rely on Johnson's word.

*bounder should be border (obviously, but could also apply to Johnson!)

Remember that the UK gets the benefits of being in a customs union and the single market, which more than pays back this money. That's a key point of being in the EU.

So depressing that this still has to be repeated. The economic benefits in terms of GDP and inward investment as well as the money saved through the efficiencies of the EU trading systems outweigh the relatively small cost of membership fees many many times over.

I think Johnson's ideal scenario is getting the WA through at the last minute with some minor alterations such as a NI-only backstop rather than UK-wide, which the EU initially proposed anyway so they would be unlikely to have a problem with it. He may have said he doesn't want a NI - only backstop, but since when has Bozo said anything he actually means? He would somehow dress up these minor alterations as huge changes achieved by his wondrous diplomacy and have his pals at the Express and Telegraph sell it as a big Johnson victory.

He would lose the support of the DUP but I don't think he will care about that as he is hoping to pick up seats in a GE in leave-voting areas so is courting Brexit Party voters ahead of DUP MPs. If he can carry out the act of leaving the EU and have a GE very soon afterwards he is banking on getting a majority by winning votes from people who are pleased he has "achieved" Brexit. He would have to do it pretty quickly though before people wake up to the fact that in the transition period, almost nothing changes. We continue to abide by EU regulations and Freedom of Movement continues. Cue angry frothing from leavers who thought all foreigners would be leaving the country on 31st October never to return. Then we enter another protracted period of negotiations.

I guess an extension refused by the EU would also be a reasonable outcome for him as then we are forced into no-deal but all fingers of blame could be pointed at the EU. Again, he would have to get an election pretty quickly before all the full effects of no-deal start to impact on people's everyday lives.

If he refuses to ask for an extension, he's playing a dangerous game if we crash out and everyone blames him rather than the EU.

I do agree that it's difficult for the EU to justify granting an extension when they said something major would have to change. Maybe Parliament will set a date for a General Election and the EU would extend for that? All polling points to a continued hung parliament though so not much would really change.

Ultra Brexiters want him to become a "martyr" to the cause by ignoring the legislation and dealing with the consequences, but I don't think there is Cabinet support for that.

Who knows. Every strategy is risky for BJ. I personally think we're headed for an extension and another hung parliament followed by much of the same. If Labour didn't do well though, JC would have to resign which might at least change the dynamics. Like it or not, he's a bogeyman for some floating voters.

Most depressing scenario: no-deal crash out because the EU refuse an extension followed by Johnson sailing to a majority as Brexit Party voters all abandon them and vote for him. We are then stuck with five more years of him, plus living with the effects of no-deal.

Remember that the UK gets the benefits of being in a customs union and the single market, which more than pays back this money. That's a key point of being in the EU

UK has a trade deficit of £64 Billion with the EU. How is that beneficial?

DUP will not accept a NI only backstop as per latest BBC news.

Some posters have suggested that an NI only backstop would create the same risk as a hard border between Ireland and NI. Difference being that it would be a different group who would object?

If he can carry out the act of leaving the EU and have a GE very soon afterwards he is banking on getting a majority by winning votes from people who are pleased he has "achieved" Brexit

Agreed. It would be a repeat of the 1983 election when Thatcher won a large majority on the back of victory in the Falklands war. The British are very proud of winning wars.

I guess an extension refused by the EU would also be a reasonable outcome for him as then we are forced into no-deal but all fingers of blame could be pointed at the EU

Music to Johnson's ears. I can already hear his speech;

"The UK tried extremely hard to get a deal with the EU, but alas the EU forced us out. However, to all Citizens of the UK, don't despair we will rebuild as we are now free to trade with the rest of the World"

The Benn Act reads:

(2) If the European Council decides to agree an extension of the period in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019, but to a date other than 11.00pm on 31 January 2020, the Prime Minister must, 5 within a period of two days beginning with the end of the day on which the European Council’s decision is made, or before the end of 30 October 2019, whichever is sooner, notify the President of the European Council that the United Kingdom agrees to the proposed extension

The wording allows the EU to demand whatever extension they wish. It could be; years, decades or centuries. UK must accept based on the wording.

However, if EU ask for a very long extension, that is measured in; years, decades or centuries, Johnson could refuse. The logic being that it is not UK's interests to be forced to pay 1 Billion per month to the EU for a period that is solely determined by the EU which could be centuries.

UK law does not change EU law. Article 50 remains unchanged and UK has to leave in accordance with Article 50. Extensions to Article 50 have to be mutually agreed as per:

The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period

Unless the Benn Act is incorporated into EU law, which would require agreement of all EU members including the UK, I can't see how the UK law prevails over EU law. As worded the Benn Act does not represent mutual agreement as per Article 50, but coercion and duress. That is the legal challenge that could be made.

I do agree that it's difficult for the EU to justify granting an extension when they said something major would have to change

Correct. If EU extends without a good reason such as referendum or general election the hard line Brexiteers will say;

"Told you that EU are afraid for UK to leave, they need the money"

Maybe Parliament will set a date for a General Election and the EU would extend for that

Parliament have voted against an election on 15 October 2019 and will not commit to a date. So EU does not have a UK General Election to justify an extension.

A trade deficit means we are getting stuff we need for our money, not that we are getting nothing back. It’s an argument for NOT leaving the EU as we will never get the same goods on as good a deal as we do now. Stop arguing in bad faith.

@hersymphonyandsong

How is money flowing out faster than it flows in a good thing?

If you see it as a bad thing now, how are you going to feel when it is increased because we cannot have such good trading terms with the EU once we have left?

We are still going to need these imports

@Her

Import cheaper from elsewhere. EU cartel (Customs Union and Single) denies access to cheaper alternatives. Ever been on holiday outside EU and wondered why things are cheaper?

Not suggesting the UK and EU never trade with each other again. Neither EU nor UK want that. UK is seeking different trade terms with EU and the freedom to deal with Non EU Countries directly.

UK has a trade deficit of 64 Billion with the EU and EU World share of economy and trade is declining

UK has a trade surplus of 44 Billion with non EU Countries and their World share of economy and trade is increasing.

I know which direction I would looking.

"Some posters have suggested that an NI only backstop would create the same risk as a hard border between Ireland and NI. Difference being that it would be a different group who would object?"
Hard to see the UVF posing the same level of threat as the IRA. Not saying they aren't a threat but they don't have the money, the international "support " or, frankly, the local support given that GFA has proved such a powerful bonus for NI.
They are fucking bastards.

I missed a "too" off the end of that. Fucking bastards like the fucking IRA.

We’re still talking about trade deficits here because we still need this stuff, and we will still want it high quality and quickly. We don’t manufacture or grow all the things we need. Trade deficit is not inherently bad, it’s part of a range of economic factors which can work for or against a country in different contexts. If you are unhappy with trade deficits in general then I’m afraid brexit is going to be a great disappointment to you.

We don’t manufacture or grow all the things we need

Did once.

The ironic thing is that the main criticisms against a persistent trade deficit is that it could lead lead to a currency decline and adverse effects on the interest rates leading to inflation. That wasn't happening in the UK at all- but it is Brexit that has crashed the pound and will no doubt lead to inflation.

Trade deficits avoid being harmful in the long term ( like in the States). Often the currency comes back via foreign investment. This was the case here. But again ironically this has plummeted because of Brexit.

I'd be interested to hear a step by step description of what Leavers think 'no deal' entails.

We haven't for a long time and you can't just switch that on by magic. That's not how capitalism or indeed farming, works. Fantasising about the return of the British mass production car industry for example is stupid. I'm old and remember how shit we got at that. That's why we don't have it any more. Furriners do it better. We're quite good at high end specialism but that isn't enough.

Did once.

OMG I think my FiL has mastered technology sufficiently to post on MN.
He always champions the glory days of manufacturing, ignoring the fact that our economy is now 80% services based. Ignoring the fact that his own son ( DH) works in services. FiL thinks we can miraculously find the skills to switch to manufacturing and we can easily succeed in competition with Apple or Samsung? He even said he didn't care if DH lost his job- it would be worth it!

Did once.

Back before supermarkets and the wide range of products we have now. No gluten free or diabetic friendly products.
Is that where the UK public wants to go? A shopping trip for meat, veg and carbs, just like Granny did.

A charming memory, but not what we've become used to.

Did once.

Last time U.K. was self sufficient in food was in 1750.

Population at the time: 8m

Source: http://www.agr.kyushu-u.ac.jp/foodsci/4paperr_Colman.pdf

It's ok Mistigri the next stage will be to evict people so that the population returns to 8m.

The isolated self sufficiency thing is sustainable then.

We do not have the space/resources/skills to grow and manufacture the amount of food that we need to feed our population. This is why we import so much food from Ireland.

Ooh when did we grow our own tea and sugar?

DUP will not accept a NI only backstop as per latest BBC news

BBC Radio 4 Today Programme was reporting the opposite around 7am!

Sigh - does anyone actually know what they want and/or what's going on?

Sigh - does anyone actually know what they want and/or what's going on?

The DUP are a bunch of misogynist, creationist money-grabbers, but in fairness to them, I think they are one of the few parties who do actually know what they want. They consistently supported May's withdrawal agreement and would do so again.