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.

Ooh when did we grow our own tea and sugar?

This is probably why if you look back in history, Britain being effectively self-sufficient in food predates the rapid growth in tea and sugar consumption during the first half of the eighteenth century. So my post should have read "prior to 1750".

@lonelyplanetmum

Inflation in the 70s hit about 30% I remember, not long after UK joined the EU and almost 40 years before the vote to leave EU happened.

Pound was weakest against the Dollar in March 1985 when it almost reached parity at 1 pound = 1.06 US$. Again, 30 years before Brexit.

US can manage large prolonged trade deficit as it the largest reserve and is used for pricing the World's must lucrative commodity, oil.

As for foreign investment, take a look at;

brexitcentral.com/global-britain-just-became-the-worlds-top-investment-destination-despite-brexit-of-course/

A weaker national currency encourages investment from overseas. Bit like buying shares when the price is lower than usual.

I am a leave with a deal that enables trade with non EU Countries supporter, as opposed to a pure no deal. However, in reply to;

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

this is what I think leavers who want a no deal see as the future in order of preference;

Sovereignty has been maintained

Rule Britannia. England rules the waves, the skies and never never shall be slaves

Two fingers to the French in reminiscence of the battle of Agincourt on 25 October 1415

Reduced immigration

Free from European Court of Justice

Free to trade with other Countries like in the days of the Empire

The referendum result was based on; Nationalism, Racism and hatred towards immigrants promoted by the tabloids. Not that many will put their hand up to that statement.

Economy, trade, WTO, jobs, etc., did not enter the equation. Take Sunderland for example. They will likely lose the most in a no deal exit from the EU, but are one the largest leave votes in the UK.

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

They will grant an extension. Varadkar has said as much. The current situation is a major change in circumstances. The government does not have a majority or anything near it, which means there will be a new government and/or a GE soon.

@Mistigri - 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.

The DUP know what they want but unfortunately it's all negative. They will do whatever is necessary, regardless of damage caused, to ensure there is no movement towards Ireland. The obvious irony is we have never been closer to a united Ireland.

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

Ah but that is, as you say, a list of what no deal leavers may want. But it is not what a no deal entails.

The no deal process is this ..
•Upon no the UK’s status immediately changes to be an outside EU third country.
•Article 50 is obvs then over and trade negotiations occur under the EU’s normal third countries procedure.
• The negotiation starts with distrust all around because of the no dealing.
•At the outset of the negotiations the European Commission needs a new negotiating mandate from each of the individual the political leaders of the EU27.
•Then the proposals and counter proposals on the new relationship begin.
•The old chestnuts of the Irish backstop, the UK’s financial contribution, and EU citizens’ rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union would all have to be readdressed as a precondition for trade talks
• Hopefully a shorter negotiation of new trade agreements for example like the free trade agreements with South Korea, Canada, Singapore, Japan and Vietnam (between six and eight years to negotiate),
• Or like Ukraine and Georgia – which took five and eight years respectively.
• Hopefully the UK negotiation would be shorter? Four years?
• It is likely the negotiations would include areas the EU can’t cover for example aviation or financial services, then another layer is necessary.
• To include stuff like aviation or financial services etc,negotiation must involve each individual member state. .
•Any agreement would then require the approval of all parliamentary bodies in the EU27.
•The national and some internal regional parliaments have a veto. As assent of all is required there could be delay. ( eg Wallonian parliament in Belgium initially had issues with the Canadian deal) .._

•	Hopefully eventually there’d be ratification. The process to achieve this is just more complex and time-consuming than the Article 50 process. 

‘No deal’ is not some miraculous easy nirvana that sound bites and memes imply.

They will grant an extension. Varadkar has said as much

Bricking himself in case the French object to an extension more like.

How does an extension help? Can't see it doing other than kicking the can once again?

An extension may avoid no deal.

The no deal process is this ..

Upon no the UK’s status immediately changes to be an outside EU third country

Correct. Then the "who is going to build the border between ROI and NI" argument begins

Article 50 is obvs then over and trade negotiations occur under the EU’s normal third countries procedure

Known as WTO

The negotiation starts with distrust all around because of the no dealing

Speculative. No deal will most likely be over border issues as opposed to new trade deals, tariffs, etc.

At the outset of the negotiations the European Commission needs a new negotiating mandate from each of the individual the political leaders of the EU27

Correct. Hence the need to use WTO in the interim.

Then the proposals and counter proposals on the new relationship begin

Correct

The old chestnuts of the Irish backstop, the UK’s financial contribution, and EU citizens’ rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union would all have to be readdressed as a precondition for trade talks

Why can't they be done at the same time?

Hopefully a shorter negotiation of new trade agreements for example like the free trade agreements with South Korea, Canada, Singapore, Japan and Vietnam (between six and eight years to negotiate)

Hopefully as a border between ROI and NI for 6 to 8 years is a long time.

Or like Ukraine and Georgia – which took five and eight years respectively

Could be. Same issues for the ROI and NI border.

Hopefully the UK negotiation would be shorter? Four years?

Hopefully.

It is likely the negotiations would include areas the EU can’t cover for example aviation or financial services, then another layer is necessary

Which adds to the time for a border between ROI and NI

To include stuff like aviation or financial services etc,negotiation must involve each individual member state

Any agreement would then require the approval of all parliamentary bodies in the EU27

Correct

The national and some internal regional parliaments have a veto. As assent of all is required there could be delay. ( eg Wallonian parliament in Belgium initially had issues with the Canadian deal)

Yes more time

Hopefully eventually there’d be ratification. The process to achieve this is just more complex and time-consuming than the Article 50 process

Yes. Article 50 was a bit optimistic in its 2 years is enough to do everything, but all EU members thought it would be okay.

‘No deal’ is not some miraculous easy nirvana that sound bites and memes imply

Maybe not, but take another look at my previous post. Leaving is all about National pride and telling the EU to go away.

An extension may avoid no deal

Until the day after the extended date, unless progress on the yet mythical friction less border technological solution appears

Lol at teacher marking your work

@MysteryTripAgain - Bricking himself in case the French object to an extension more like.

Given you don't even know who Simon Coveney is, I wouldn't put any credence in your opinion on this.

France has objected previously. They will not be the ones to mess this up.

How does an extension help? Can't see it doing other than kicking the can once again?

GE and/or new government who are likely to agree a NI backstop or a new referendum.

@MysteryTripAgain - For a vote on an NI only backstop, the WA will have to be changed and EU has said that it not going to happen. So how do these untested ideas ever reach the table?

Untrue. The EU have stated there will be no substantive changes to the WA unless the UK present a viable, workable, legal alternative to the UK wide backstop. A NI backstop will achieve that.

@MysteryTripAgain - If EU do agree to an extension, even though UK will not have a further referendum and general election date is unknown, they are contradicting themselves.

Untrue. The EU have stated they will not agree another extension other than if there is a significant reason, such as a new referendum or GE. The current situation will result in a new government and/or a GE as Johnson does not have anywhere near a majority.

They'd have to be doing some work towards agreeing a deal for that to be possible. Which they aren't.

@MysteryTripAgain - How would EU refusal to extend Article 50 be grounds for a vote on no confidence against UK Government?

I think there are plenty of grounds to have a vote of no confidence, regardless of what the EU do or don't do.

@MysteryTripAgain - 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.

They could but that would be in nobody's interest. The UK causing trouble at every vote and discussion is not what the EU wants. If you're staying, then get with the programme. Otherwise, just make a decision that complies with your legal obligations under the GFA, and leave.

So have MPs have sold the UK to the EU?

Paranoia much?

@RosiePosiePuddle - 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.

It does. However, there is always the possibility of the loyalist paramilitaries taking up arms again. However, the economic benefits to the community means they are unlikely to get the support they need to be a major threat. In contrast, a hard border will wreck the NI economy, as well as contravening the GFA so would be much more likely to result in a sustained campaign by republican paramilitaries.

GE and/or new government who are likely to agree a NI backstop or a new referendum

A GE will most likely result in a Brexit/Conservative Party coalition.

Labour are all over the place and can't even shake of the LibDems in the polls.

Under the UK' seat system Brexit Party will do well as there is no evidence that there has been a big shift from leave to remain in the UK. Around 406-410 constituencies voted leave in 2016 compared to 242-238 remain.

That is a big majority which can overturn any previously passed law. Also remember that polls show more people fear Corbyn as PM then they fear a no deal Brexit.

Leaving is all about National pride and telling the EU to go away

Therein lies the problem.

As you have acknowledged even the no deal (so beloved of many) in fact involves the immediate commencement of protracted negotiations for a replacement trade deal.

We have agreed on pretty much all the post no deal stages set out above.

The unalienable fact is we are geographically located next to lucrative trading partners. They happen to be in a big trading union.

If this has all been done for pride why couldn't we have done something else? Why is telling countries to 'go away' inextricably linked with pride? What happens to our pride when we no deal for a day and then go cap in hand to immediately start the trade negotiations?

Being proud to be as others saw us, the big boys leading a powerful trading block. Or we could restore pride by telling Trump to go away. Or we could tell Putin and his frequent forays into our air and sea space to go away?

A NI backstop will achieve that

If it can get past the DUP and the ERG? What about the Loyalist uprising that I keep hearing about if the NI only backstop goes ahead?

Not completely clear from the posts, but reads as though a NI only backstop has the same risk of troubles as a hard border between ROI and NI? If so where is the gain?

@MysteryTripAgain - Ever been on holiday outside EU and wondered why things are cheaper?

Really? I love your use of the 50 cent army tactics. Most of the countries with lower prices have a lower standard of living.
This is a very useful site that allows you to compare cost of living between cities. Other than London, you will find the cost of living in UK cities compared with similar cities in "western" countries is either comparable or lower.

If you're staying, then get with the programme. Otherwise, just make a decision that complies with your legal obligations under the GFA, and leave

Back again to Why's theory that GFA is EU law. Refer back to your previous posts that confirm GFA is not EU law.

Article 50, signed by all EU members, allows no deal.

@MysteryTripAgain - Under the UK' seat system Brexit Party will do well as there is no evidence that there has been a big shift from leave to remain in the UK. Around 406-410 constituencies voted leave in 2016 compared to 242-238 remain.

That is completely irrelevant to my point. There is a change in circumstances that will allow the EU to approve an extension. What happens with the GE/referendum is up to you lot.

Most of the countries with lower prices have a lower standard of living

EU is not exactly harmonized in that respect. Look at the difference between Eastern and Western Europe.

A pint of Stella Artois can be bought in Bulgaria for one euro. My parents were in Ireland recently and paying 5 Euros!

@MysteryTripAgain - Back again to Why's theory that GFA is EU law. Refer back to your previous posts that confirm GFA is not EU law.

Please stop lying. I have never claimed the GFA is part of EU law. Neither has anyone else. The only poster who does this is you, presumably in an effort to misdirect and misinform.

The GFA is an international peace treaty the UK and Ireland have signed up to. The UK are obliged to comply with the GFA under international law. They should consider the implications of any actions they take on their compliance with any other treaties they have signed up to. Ireland did this when deciding not to sign up to schengen.