So I've only paid a small amount of attention to all this Brexit nonsense

[WES]

so perhaps someone can explain a couple of things to me:

1) this terrible, horrendous, utterly awful agreement that is a betrayal of our country and the Brexit vote etc etc etc - this lays out how we will leave, right? It says nothing about our long term relationship i.e. trade deals, with the EU which is what will really matter to us, right? So it is relevant only to the extent that it impacts our ability to agree a long term relationship that is as good as possible for the UK. Is that right?

2) I have seen a rather large number of seemingly educated people suggest that the UK could be stuck in a customs union for all perpetuity should the EU not allow us to leave. This is surely incorrect. The UK can do a hard Brexit any time it wants by simply no longer playing by EU rules, is that not correct?

The phrase much 'ado about nothing' comes to mind.

[Sir C]

so perhaps someone can explain a couple of things to me:

1) this terrible, horrendous, utterly awful agreement that is a betrayal of our country and the Brexit vote etc etc etc - this lays out how we will leave, right? It says nothing about our long term relationship i.e. trade deals, with the EU which is what will really matter to us, right? So it is relevant only to the extent that it impacts our ability to agree a long term relationship that is as good as possible for the UK. Is that right?

2) I have seen a rather large number of seemingly educated people suggest that the UK could be stuck in a customs union for all perpetuity should the EU not allow us to leave. This is surely incorrect. The UK can do a hard Brexit any time it wants by simply no longer playing by EU rules, is that not correct?

The phrase much 'ado about nothing' comes to mind.

The point is rather that the agreement lays out a framework for never actually Brexiting in any meaningful sense. I refer you to my previous predictions of the issue being fudged so that the establishment would, in future years, be able plausibly to claim to have abided by the result of the referendum, but without actually ever changing anything.

The agreement just fudges things along and lays the gorundwork for the further fudging to come.

It is a betrayal of democracy and, in effect, the establishment of a dictatorship utterly unaccountable to the views of the citizens of this country.

Welcome to the Stalinist EUSSR.

[WES]

The point is rather that the agreement lays out a framework for never actually Brexiting in any meaningful sense. I refer you to my previous predictions of the issue being fudged so that the establishment would, in future years, be able plausibly to claim to have abided by the result of the referendum, but without actually ever changing anything.

The agreement just fudges things along and lays the gorundwork for the further fudging to come.

It is a betrayal of democracy and, in effect, the establishment of a dictatorship utterly unaccountable to the views of the citizens of this country.

Welcome to the Stalinist EUSSR.

Hmmm, most of that reads as though you agree with what I said but that you think that when it comes down to negotiating what really matters - our future relationship with the EU - that the people involved will bottle it and negotiate a very watered down Brexit.

That's possible - of course - but I would point out that during this set of negotiations the UK has pretty much no leverage whatsoever beyond the threat of no deal (something we routinely tell everyone we want to avoid) as we're the ones asking to leave while at the same time making it clear we want access to the common market. That pretty much puts all the cards in the EU's hands. It's true that by making it clear what we expect with respect to the Irish border that we weakened our position a bit but I doubt it made much difference, they had all the cards they needed anyway.

As I pointed out a few days ago to Monty, what May has been asked to achieve is exceptionally difficult given our lack of leverage. And I doubt very much whether any deal agreed at this point would have been much different.

When we will have leverage is during the future relationship negotiations as at that point the impact of our leaving with no deal will be very clear to the EU countries at the table. I fail to see why we would be pessimistic about our ability to negotiate a deal that benefits those involved at that point.

And failing that, I still fail to see why we should be so afraid of no deal. As I said, much ado about nothing.

[Pokster]

Hmmm, most of that reads as though you agree with what I said but that you think that when it comes down to negotiating what really matters - our future relationship with the EU - that the people involved will bottle it and negotiate a very watered down Brexit.

That's possible - of course - but I would point out that during this set of negotiations the UK has pretty much no leverage whatsoever beyond the threat of no deal (something we routinely tell everyone we want to avoid) as we're the ones asking to leave while at the same time making it clear we want access to the common market. That pretty much puts all the cards in the EU's hands. It's true that by making it clear what we expect with respect to the Irish border that we weakened our position a bit but I doubt it made much difference, they had all the cards they needed anyway.

As I pointed out a few days ago to Monty, what May has been asked to achieve is exceptionally difficult given our lack of leverage. And I doubt very much whether any deal agreed at this point would have been much different.

When we will have leverage is during the future relationship negotiations as at that point the impact of our leaving with no deal will be very clear to the EU countries at the table. I fail to see why we would be pessimistic about our ability to negotiate a deal that benefits those involved at that point.

And failing that, I still fail to see why we should be so afraid of no deal. As I said, much ado about nothing.

So basically well done to the idiot that decided giving the population this vote was a good idea..... total **** up from start to finish as you end up pissing off practically everyone in the country.. wd dc

[Monty92]

Hmmm, most of that reads as though you agree with what I said but that you think that when it comes down to negotiating what really matters - our future relationship with the EU - that the people involved will bottle it and negotiate a very watered down Brexit.

That's possible - of course - but I would point out that during this set of negotiations the UK has pretty much no leverage whatsoever beyond the threat of no deal (something we routinely tell everyone we want to avoid) as we're the ones asking to leave while at the same time making it clear we want access to the common market. That pretty much puts all the cards in the EU's hands. It's true that by making it clear what we expect with respect to the Irish border that we weakened our position a bit but I doubt it made much difference, they had all the cards they needed anyway.

As I pointed out a few days ago to Monty, what May has been asked to achieve is exceptionally difficult given our lack of leverage. And I doubt very much whether any deal agreed at this point would have been much different.

When we will have leverage is during the future relationship negotiations as at that point the impact of our leaving with no deal will be very clear to the EU countries at the table. I fail to see why we would be pessimistic about our ability to negotiate a deal that benefits those involved at that point.

And failing that, I still fail to see why we should be so afraid of no deal. As I said, much ado about nothing.

"something we routinely tell everyone we want to avoid"

The so-called hard Brexiteers have not done this. The ones that many Brexit voters would prefer were leading the negotiations.

[WES]

"something we routinely tell everyone we want to avoid"

The so-called hard Brexiteers have not done this. The ones that many Brexit voters would prefer were leading the negotiations.

Yes that's true but as has now been pointed out to you twice, at this point it wouldn't have made any difference because the EU holds all the cards anyway and we are not currently negotiating the future relationship, only the logistics of how we will exit. This negotiation actually means very little so I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

[Burney]

The point is rather that the agreement lays out a framework for never actually Brexiting in any meaningful sense. I refer you to my previous predictions of the issue being fudged so that the establishment would, in future years, be able plausibly to claim to have abided by the result of the referendum, but without actually ever changing anything.

The agreement just fudges things along and lays the gorundwork for the further fudging to come.

It is a betrayal of democracy and, in effect, the establishment of a dictatorship utterly unaccountable to the views of the citizens of this country.

Welcome to the Stalinist EUSSR.

We have established that WES doesn't really understand or care about democratic principles and imagines that all that matters is whether business flows smoothly. Trying to explain the democratic issues with the Brexit deal to him is like trying to explain vegetarianism to a shark.

[Monty92]

Yes that's true but as has now been pointed out to you twice, at this point it wouldn't have made any difference because the EU holds all the cards anyway and we are not currently negotiating the future relationship, only the logistics of how we will exit. This negotiation actually means very little so I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

I don't see why it's improbable that a genuine threat of No Deal would not have lent the entire negotiations - including the withdrawal agreement - a different complexion.

[Burney]

I don't see why it's improbable that a genuine threat of No Deal would not have lent the entire negotiations - including the withdrawal agreement - a different complexion.

Well of course it would have done. A negotiation from which you're not prepared to walk away is not a negotiation, it's a document of surrender.

[WES]

I don't see why it's improbable that a genuine threat of No Deal would not have lent the entire negotiations - including the withdrawal agreement - a different complexion.

What do you think we would have gained by doing this? How would the exit deal have been different had we done that and how would that have been likely to impact our future relationship negotiations?