No deal Brexit...

[Derek Hardballs]

At some point there will have to be a deal with Europe so can someone explain how the ‘threat’ of a no deal is of any use? How will been on WTO rules suddenly make our bargaining position any stronger? Will the more cerebral Brexiteers on here please explain?

[hudds]

At some point there will have to be a deal with Europe so can someone explain how the ‘threat’ of a no deal is of any use? How will been on WTO rules suddenly make our bargaining position any stronger? Will the more cerebral Brexiteers on here please explain?

That's not their point, Dekka.  The likes of Tim Martin want total free trade which eliminates making deals.  You are left with nothing to bargain with as you accept total free trade into the UK.  You may recall that Proth thinks this is great and is a rejection of protectionism.  I keep hearing Supertramp's "Dreamer".  Trump's mob have now said they will want total access to UK pickings, such as the NHS....  a Farage wet dream.

[baggy1]

I keep hearing Supertramp's "Dreamer".  

1 almighty fuck up if ever there was one. When Trump said that the US were ready to negotiate a trade deal with the UK I wish the interviewer would have had the balls to ask how it will be better for the UK than the existing EU deal.

[FenlandBoing]

At some point there will have to be a deal with Europe so can someone explain how the ‘threat’ of a no deal is of any use? How will been on WTO rules suddenly make our bargaining position any stronger? Will the more cerebral Brexiteers on here please explain?

At this stage the EU are saying 'the deal we have offered is the only deal or there is no deal'. And we seem to be saying 'we cannot accept your deal but our parliament won't accept no deal!' 

Maybe going to WTO rules is the only option for an interim period of new negotiations, once the dust has settled somewhat and the EU and us potentially drop back into recession?

[Borin' Baggie]

At some point there will have to be a deal with Europe so can someone explain how the ‘threat’ of a no deal is of any use? How will been on WTO rules suddenly make our bargaining position any stronger? Will the more cerebral Brexiteers on here please explain?

At this stage the EU are saying 'the deal we have offered is the only deal or there is no deal'. And we seem to be saying 'we cannot accept your deal but our parliament won't accept no deal!' 

Maybe going to WTO rules is the only option for an interim period of new negotiations, once the dust has settled somewhat and the EU and us potentially drop back into recession?

The Withdrawal Agreement (not a deal) is based on May's red lines. If the new PM were to remove some of those red lines and negotiate a further extension then they can change it.

And no deal will put us into a worse negotiating position and will not remove the stipulations that the EU have regarding a deal (£39bn payment and Irish backstop). It is an objectively stupid idea. WTO rules are the worst, most basic set of trading regulations. The fact that people actually support it is mind boggling.

[FenlandBoing]

At some point there will have to be a deal with Europe so can someone explain how the ‘threat’ of a no deal is of any use? How will been on WTO rules suddenly make our bargaining position any stronger? Will the more cerebral Brexiteers on here please explain?

At this stage the EU are saying 'the deal we have offered is the only deal or there is no deal'. And we seem to be saying 'we cannot accept your deal but our parliament won't accept no deal!' 

Maybe going to WTO rules is the only option for an interim period of new negotiations, once the dust has settled somewhat and the EU and us potentially drop back into recession?

The Withdrawal Agreement (not a deal) is based on May's red lines. If the new PM were to remove some of those red lines and negotiate a further extension then they can change it.

And no deal will put us into a worse negotiating position and will not remove the stipulations that the EU have regarding a deal (£39bn payment and Irish backstop). It is an objectively stupid idea. WTO rules are the worst, most basic set of trading regulations. The fact that people actually support it is mind boggling.

Didn't May move her 'red lines' in terms of the deal/agreement reached in the end?

[Borin' Baggie]

At some point there will have to be a deal with Europe so can someone explain how the ‘threat’ of a no deal is of any use? How will been on WTO rules suddenly make our bargaining position any stronger? Will the more cerebral Brexiteers on here please explain?

At this stage the EU are saying 'the deal we have offered is the only deal or there is no deal'. And we seem to be saying 'we cannot accept your deal but our parliament won't accept no deal!' 

Maybe going to WTO rules is the only option for an interim period of new negotiations, once the dust has settled somewhat and the EU and us potentially drop back into recession?

The Withdrawal Agreement (not a deal) is based on May's red lines. If the new PM were to remove some of those red lines and negotiate a further extension then they can change it.

And no deal will put us into a worse negotiating position and will not remove the stipulations that the EU have regarding a deal (£39bn payment and Irish backstop). It is an objectively stupid idea. WTO rules are the worst, most basic set of trading regulations. The fact that people actually support it is mind boggling.

Didn't May move her 'red lines' in terms of the deal/agreement reached in the end?

No, otherwise the WA would keep us in the single market.