And you're the expert I assume.

The delusions are with the lily livered remoaners that think we couldn't survive on our own

I am no more an expert than anyone else who is not a specialist.

What I do though is listen to those who are experts and not just optimistic bullsh*tters, or those who throw around insults like confetti in the hope that that helps their arguments. As soon as terms like "remoaner" enter the debate I realise that straws are being reached for.

It's not a question of whether we can "survive on our own". Of course we can. We could survive on baked beans and Budweiser but I wouldn't want to. It's a question of how we survive and what the future will be for our children and grandchildren. It's a question of our place in the world and how best to play it.

It amazes me that people seem to think that just because we make significant contributions to the EU, so have "negotiating leverage", that they must all roll over and accede to our demands. Of course if we leave without a deal it would hurt them too, as our economy and imports from them would shrink, so they want to avoid it, but they cannot do so on terms which would hurt them even more.

I think leaving is crazy but I think leaving without a proper arrangement for our future relationship, a "deal", is beyond crazy. It's the irresponsible narcissism of a group determined to prove a point and not of those who seek the best outcome for us all.

Philip Hammond got it right in his statement. A no deal Brexit would be a betrayal of the 2016 referendum result. The leave campaign promised that a new arrangement would be easily obtained and no-one should fear Brexit. No-one voted for, or even contemplated, leaving without one so if it is attempted Parliament has to intervene and stop it. That is their duty.

Do you mean the experts that agree with you or the experts that don't?

Why do you think leaving without signing a punitive treaty is "beyond crazy"? Do you know what is in the current withdrawal agreement with or without the backstop?

I am no more an expert than anyone else who is not a specialist.

What I do though is listen to those who are experts and not just optimistic bullsh*tters, or those who throw around insults like confetti in the hope that that helps their arguments. As soon as terms like "remoaner" enter the debate I realise that straws are being reached for.

It's not a question of whether we can "survive on our own". Of course we can. We could survive on baked beans and Budweiser but I wouldn't want to. It's a question of how we survive and what the future will be for our children and grandchildren. It's a question of our place in the world and how best to play it.

It amazes me that people seem to think that just because we make significant contributions to the EU, so have "negotiating leverage", that they must all roll over and accede to our demands. Of course if we leave without a deal it would hurt them too, as our economy and imports from them would shrink, so they want to avoid it, but they cannot do so on terms which would hurt them even more.

I think leaving is crazy but I think leaving without a proper arrangement for our future relationship, a "deal", is beyond crazy. It's the irresponsible narcissism of a group determined to prove a point and not of those who seek the best outcome for us all.

Philip Hammond got it right in his statement. A no deal Brexit would be a betrayal of the 2016 referendum result. The leave campaign promised that a new arrangement would be easily obtained and no-one should fear Brexit. No-one voted for, or even contemplated, leaving without one so if it is attempted Parliament has to intervene and stop it. That is their duty.

Again, Parliament can revoke after changing it's mind because of events. It passed because a deal was expected. It could be revoked if that is not offered.

No, we are where we not because of "events" but because a satisfactory treaty has not been achieved because a remain government bungled (either deliberately of just through sheer incompetence) negotiations and a remain parliament made the situation worse i.e. by taking a no deal off the table, extending deadlines, frustrating progress but mostly by overtly signalling to the EU that it didn't have the stomach to stand up to it. Because of this we are left with a "deal" that gives the EU everything it wants (*plus* £39bn) ,gives the UK nothing and doesn't take us out of the EU.

None of that means anyone has a mandate to revoke article 50 and quite the opposite. There is only one mandate on the table and we are leaving the EU.

Yes, negotiations were sabotaged by a bunch of remainers in government intent on staying in the EU if not via some form of BRINO treaty then actually revoking A50. The EU originally offered us a free trade deal (twice I believe).

The negotiation should have gone like this:

1. Day 1 - The UK sets a date for departure
2. Day 2 - The UK puts in place a comprehensive plan for a WTO exit
3. Day 3 - The UK offers the EU reasonable terms on a free trade deal (rather than going cap in hand to Brussels)
4. Day x - The UK leaves the EU with or without a trade deal

What do we have now?

[Link]

Basically remainers leave us no choice but to leave on WTO terms.

I wonder if one day Brexiteers will actually take some responsibility - it’s everyones fault (remainers, the EU, the governement) that their impossible pipe dream hasn’t been fulfilled.

My suspicion is that they will continue to kick the can down the road, dismissing any of the inevitable consequences as not what they voted for and the fault of xxxx.

So very transparent.

I wonder if one day Brexiteers will actually take some responsibility - it’s everyones fault (remainers, the EU, the governement) that their impossible pipe dream hasn’t been fulfilled.

My suspicion is that they will continue to kick the can down the road, dismissing any of the inevitable consequences as not what they voted for and the fault of xxxx.

So very transparent.