Brexit - merged threads

[Raja Clavata]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Then you ruin it with supposition and heresay.

The establishment themselves being that 'emerging authoritarian world order' you mentioned.
I think you need to have a good think about what you are saying here, you seem to getting confused with the meaning of freedom of choice.

There's a smoking gun but proof is a strong word that needs to be used sparingly.

This is still unraveling and nobody knows the true motives or if and when a point of proof is reached; it could be a social experiment, a power play, financially motivated or something all together more sinister.

Of course you are right about individual freedom of choice and, like I said, there may be no instrument of law that can be served against it but just because it serves your objective and not mine (or vice-versa) it does not mean that the voice of the other side should not be heard.

Let's face it the Brexit referendum campaign was like pro cycling a few years ago - the team who lied and cheated the best won.

[JRDS]

So peoples votes were all driven by the different campaigns, absolute ********.

[Rewulf]

12 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Of course you are right about individual freedom of choice and, like I said, there may be no instrument of law that can be served against it but just because it serves your objective and not mine (or vice-versa) it does not mean that the voice of the other side should not be heard.

Agreed.

 

13 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Let's face it the Brexit referendum campaign was like pro cycling a few years ago - the team who lied and cheated the best won.

Not agreed.

The odds were always stacked against leave, the government itself, 90 % of the media, 80 % of MPs, the EU , all tried to stop Brexit, they still are !

These institutions are absolutely desperate , they are the ones throwing accusations of lying and cheating about, where is the proof ?
The Russians made us do it, Leave followed an 'unfair' campaign, the Bus, 52 % of the country are uneducated racists.
Think about it objectively , Leave shouldnt have won , it should have been a remain landslide really.
But it didnt, and it wasnt, think what kind of result it would have been without government leaflets, media bias, or a fair representation of leave MPs ?

Leave won because thats what the people wanted.

And, if you did it again tomorrow, thats still going to be what the people wanted, to get away from this type of corruption.
And thats why they wont run it like before , they will seek to divide the leave vote, 'to make it fair' ! 🤣
This is what youre up against, because its not right , fair or democratic.
Its banana republic politics.

[12gauge82]

53 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Agreed.

 

Not agreed.

The odds were always stacked against leave, the government itself, 90 % of the media, 80 % of MPs, the EU , all tried to stop Brexit, they still are !

These institutions are absolutely desperate , they are the ones throwing accusations of lying and cheating about, where is the proof ?
The Russians made us do it, Leave followed an 'unfair' campaign, the Bus, 52 % of the country are uneducated racists.
Think about it objectively , Leave shouldnt have won , it should have been a remain landslide really.
But it didnt, and it wasnt, think what kind of result it would have been without government leaflets, media bias, or a fair representation of leave MPs ?

Leave won because thats what the people wanted.

And, if you did it again tomorrow, thats still going to be what the people wanted, to get away from this type of corruption.
And thats why they wont run it like before , they will seek to divide the leave vote, 'to make it fair' ! 🤣
This is what youre up against, because its not right , fair or democratic.
Its banana republic politics.

+1 good post

 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

 

The odds were always stacked against leave, the government itself, 90 % of the media, 80 % of MPs, the EU , all tried to stop Brexit, they still are !

These institutions are absolutely desperate , they are the ones throwing accusations of lying and cheating about, where is the proof ?
The Russians made us do it, Leave followed an 'unfair' campaign, the Bus, 52 % of the country are uneducated racists.
Think about it objectively , Leave shouldnt have won , it should have been a remain landslide really.
But it didnt, and it wasnt, think what kind of result it would have been without government leaflets, media bias, or a fair representation of leave MPs ?

Leave won because thats what the people wanted.

And, if you did it again tomorrow, thats still going to be what the people wanted, to get away from this type of corruption.
And thats why they wont run it like before , they will seek to divide the leave vote, 'to make it fair' ! 🤣
This is what youre up against, because its not right , fair or democratic.
Its banana republic politics.

Couldn't have put it better myself. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

By Allister Heath
6th Mar 2019, 8:00 pm
If the Treasury was being honest, it would admit that EU membership has made little difference to our prosperity

Like almost everybody who voted for Brexit, I wanted to leave the EU with a trade deal. I certainly assumed that we would: it is in both sides’ interests, and EU manufacturers and farmers do especially well from the present arrangements.

I thought the Government would negotiate robustly and sensibly, following Vote Leave’s advice not to trigger Article 50 until the outlines of a deal had been agreed, all the while preparing for a hard exit. I expected the EU to realise that a refusal to play ball would mean a calamitous financial, defence and security hit.

It wasn’t to be. The abject lack of leadership provided by the Prime Minister, the Government’s staggering refusal to leverage the UK’s strengths, its bovine nastiness on the rights of EU citizens and, of course, the fact that so many on the UK side were trying to reverse Brexit, all combined to deliver the greatest failure of British statecraft since Suez.

The EU was emboldened into laying a series of traps into which we jumped enthusiastically, with what ought to have been the minor issue of Northern Ireland’s border turned into a case study in technocratic sabotage.

What now? Tory Remainers are in full swing, threatening either a delay or permanent membership of the customs union and single market – in other words, no Brexit – if MPs don’t sign up to the Prime Minister’s appalling deal. We must hope that, against all the odds, Parliament doesn’t fall for this madness.

Like most Leave voters, my position has hardened. I still don’t relish the idea of leaving without a deal, but I’m now, for the first time, reconciled to doing so. As matters stand, a so-called no-deal (in reality, we’ve already agreed lots of mini-deals) would be our least bad option. It wouldn’t be pretty, especially for one or two industries, but would probably cost just 1-2 per cent of GDP.

Ifo, the German think tank, is even more optimistic: it believes the cost of a no-deal accompanied by radical tariff cuts would be only 0.48 per cent of GDP. Indeed, the Government’s reported plan to eliminate 80-90 cent of tariffs, maintaining protection in only a handful of sectors, would dramatically reduce the net costs of departure. There can be no contest between a Hotel California Brexit or the greatest unilateral reductions in tariffs since the repeal of the Corn Laws.

Even the Bank of England believes the side-agreements it has signed and other preparations have halved the cost of no deal compared to three months ago (and that is before tariff cuts and other, as yet unannounced, palliative measures). The downsides of a clean Brexit have been massively exaggerated, as have the benefits of single market and customs union membership.

[Newbie to this]

10 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

By Allister Heath
6th Mar 2019, 8:00 pm
If the Treasury was being honest, it would admit that EU membership has made little difference to our prosperity

Like almost everybody who voted for Brexit, I wanted to leave the EU with a trade deal. I certainly assumed that we would: it is in both sides’ interests, and EU manufacturers and farmers do especially well from the present arrangements.

I thought the Government would negotiate robustly and sensibly, following Vote Leave’s advice not to trigger Article 50 until the outlines of a deal had been agreed, all the while preparing for a hard exit. I expected the EU to realise that a refusal to play ball would mean a calamitous financial, defence and security hit.

It wasn’t to be. The abject lack of leadership provided by the Prime Minister, the Government’s staggering refusal to leverage the UK’s strengths, its bovine nastiness on the rights of EU citizens and, of course, the fact that so many on the UK side were trying to reverse Brexit, all combined to deliver the greatest failure of British statecraft since Suez.

The EU was emboldened into laying a series of traps into which we jumped enthusiastically, with what ought to have been the minor issue of Northern Ireland’s border turned into a case study in technocratic sabotage.

What now? Tory Remainers are in full swing, threatening either a delay or permanent membership of the customs union and single market – in other words, no Brexit – if MPs don’t sign up to the Prime Minister’s appalling deal. We must hope that, against all the odds, Parliament doesn’t fall for this madness.

Like most Leave voters, my position has hardened. I still don’t relish the idea of leaving without a deal, but I’m now, for the first time, reconciled to doing so. As matters stand, a so-called no-deal (in reality, we’ve already agreed lots of mini-deals) would be our least bad option. It wouldn’t be pretty, especially for one or two industries, but would probably cost just 1-2 per cent of GDP.

Ifo, the German think tank, is even more optimistic: it believes the cost of a no-deal accompanied by radical tariff cuts would be only 0.48 per cent of GDP. Indeed, the Government’s reported plan to eliminate 80-90 cent of tariffs, maintaining protection in only a handful of sectors, would dramatically reduce the net costs of departure. There can be no contest between a Hotel California Brexit or the greatest unilateral reductions in tariffs since the repeal of the Corn Laws.

Even the Bank of England believes the side-agreements it has signed and other preparations have halved the cost of no deal compared to three months ago (and that is before tariff cuts and other, as yet unannounced, palliative measures). The downsides of a clean Brexit have been massively exaggerated, as have the benefits of single market and customs union membership.

[old man]

On 05/03/2019 at 19:36, oowee said:

Interesting piece on CH4 looks like the evidence of Russian involvement in the Brexit process through Arron Banks is getting closer to being proven. It demonstrates the importance of joint working, when the Russians are prepared to influence politics here and use our own people to destabalise the state. 

All of this is just old hat, Politics, money and power seeking. Always been the same ,always will be? Always someone wanting to be on top?

On 05/03/2019 at 19:38, pinfireman said:

He,s a pompous little idiot! Like his pal Blair!

That's patently unfair to idiots?

[pinfireman]

2 hours ago, old man said:

All of this is just old hat, Politics, money and power seeking. Always been the same ,always will be? Always someone wanting to be on top?

That's patently unfair to idiots?

True!

[toxo]

It would appear that we have nothing to worry about. I do hope so.

https://brexitcentral.com/deal-no-deal-heres-brexit-cannot-stopped/

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Interesting!

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, toxo said:

It would appear that we have nothing to worry about. I do hope so.

https://brexitcentral.com/deal-no-deal-heres-brexit-cannot-stopped/

I like his way of thinking 

[JohnfromUK]

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I like his way of thinking 

I'm no expert, but I suspect "wishful" would be a good description of his thinking!

[pinfireman]

The Centre for Policy Studies have launched a new report setting out a 12-point plan for how to turbocharge the economy after a no deal Brexit. The plan includes numerous business-boosting measures including significant tax cuts for small businesses and ordinary workers, while lowering corporation tax to increase the incentives for larger businesses to invest. Tariffs are cut dramatically and free ports given the go-ahead.  A council tax freeze will also go down very well with voters…

The only question is how it’s all going to be paid for. The CPS say it can all be financed with a small short-term increase in deficit spending, keeping public sector net borrowing under the level of 4.5% of GDP it was at in 2014/15. As a leading German financial institute predicted just this week, if the UK handles no deal sensibly and slashes tariffs it can actually do better out of it relative to the EU…

 

Edited March 8, 2019 by pinfireman
spelling

[pinfireman]

and they call themselves Liberal DEMOCRATS!

 

The Lib Dems have decided to flagrantly ignore another result in a referendum they actually called themselves – using the excuse that more old people voted the way they wanted. Richmond Lib Dems held a vote to gauge public support for their plan to reduce speed limits to 20mph across the Borough. Almost 10,000 people took part in the vote, which split 51% to 49% against them…

True to form, the Lib Dems have decided to ignore the result and implement their original plans anyway, barring three minor exemptions. To top it off, the party used the fact that 60% of over-75s supported the proposals as a key excuse for overruling the will of the people of Richmond upon Thames. Guido looks forward to the Lib Dems putting as much importance on the views of old people in every referendum…

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, pinfireman said:

As a leading German financial institute predicted just this week, if the UK handles no deal sensibly and slashes tariffs it can actually do better out of it relative to the EU

I think there is very little doubt that (much of) the UK could do well outside the EU.  The measures suggested are sensible (cut corporation tax, incentives for investment, freeze red tape and cut it, reduction in business rates and cost of employment, reduce most tariffs to (near or at) zero ....... are all good sense.  Other than the change to reverse benefits freeze, they are sound measures and I agree they are sensible.

Trouble is one of our main parties want to reverse existing cuts to corporation tax, increase tariffs and taxation, discourage and frighten off high earners and achievers - exactly the reverse of what is needed - That is why Labour would do far, FAR more damage to the country than either Brexit or no Brexit ever would.

I am NOT however in favour of ending benefits freeze (except in special needy cases).

[pinfireman]

On 07/03/2019 at 13:47, Rewulf said:

*Sigh , Do you not think if there was any concrete 'proof' that Banks, Farage or any Leave group could be tied to Russian money, it would be plastered all over your lefty media ?
With a resultant call for article 50 to be revoked, and the status returned to normal 'democratic' EU control ?

Do you know why they havnt done this?
Theyve inferred it, just like the Dems are inferring it in the US about Trump, hoping the old adage 'No smoke with...' will cling like the proverbial.
But coming out with such a libelous charge, when there isnt actual any proof WHATSOEVER, could prove costly.

No its not !
The 2 things are nothing like it, Germany is about to base its future energy needs on Russian gas , I think you better tell Merkie , quick time 😄
Destabilise Europe for what exactly , so Putin can move the tanks in ? Russia isnt even militarily capable of doing that these days, even without the US backing us.

If Russia REALLY wanted to cause division and distress to us , they would be better off pumping money into the labour party, and get Corbyn in  

 Funding for what ?! £2 worth of hi viz and a couple of poo balloons 😆
Why does everything that goes against the establishment/status quo have to be 'driven' by something ?
Let me guess, its the Russkies doing France too ?
Not just a bunch of disgruntled citizens, who have had enough of their government bending them over.

Like Brexiteers, yes I know we voted wrong, it was a bit unexpected , but hey , weve gone from uneducated racists to Russian controlled automatons, controlled by the ******* Kremlin now!

You start off being reasonably sensible..

 

Then you ruin it with supposition and heresay.

 

The irony is that democracy really did prevail, it just wasnt the 'right' democracy for the establishments aims.
The establishment themselves being that 'emerging authoritarian world order' you mentioned.
I think you need to have a good think about what you are saying here, you seem to getting confused with the meaning of freedom of choice.

 

I must be a hard line Brexiter then, because when I woke up on the 24 th , I was very very happy.
Happy that this country felt that strongly they were prepared to do the brave thing , and cast into the unknown, put their own personal interests aside for the betterment of the country as a whole, and its future citizens.
I take a great deal of comfort knowing that, whether Brexit happens or not, we did do that thing, and if we did it once , we can do it again.

Brilliant!

22 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

There's a smoking gun but proof is a strong word that needs to be used sparingly.

This is still unraveling and nobody knows the true motives or if and when a point of proof is reached; it could be a social experiment, a power play, financially motivated or something all together more sinister.

Of course you are right about individual freedom of choice and, like I said, there may be no instrument of law that can be served against it but just because it serves your objective and not mine (or vice-versa) it does not mean that the voice of the other side should not be heard.

Let's face it the Brexit referendum campaign was like pro cycling a few years ago - the team who lied and cheated the best won.

The last line.....utter garbage, compared to the Remoaner Project Fear Camapign! Utter Garbage!

22 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Agreed.

 

Not agreed.

The odds were always stacked against leave, the government itself, 90 % of the media, 80 % of MPs, the EU , all tried to stop Brexit, they still are !

These institutions are absolutely desperate , they are the ones throwing accusations of lying and cheating about, where is the proof ?
The Russians made us do it, Leave followed an 'unfair' campaign, the Bus, 52 % of the country are uneducated racists.
Think about it objectively , Leave shouldnt have won , it should have been a remain landslide really.
But it didnt, and it wasnt, think what kind of result it would have been without government leaflets, media bias, or a fair representation of leave MPs ?

Leave won because thats what the people wanted.

And, if you did it again tomorrow, thats still going to be what the people wanted, to get away from this type of corruption.
And thats why they wont run it like before , they will seek to divide the leave vote, 'to make it fair' ! 🤣
This is what youre up against, because its not right , fair or democratic.
Its banana republic politics.

Exactly! 

[pinfireman]

19 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

By Allister Heath
6th Mar 2019, 8:00 pm
If the Treasury was being honest, it would admit that EU membership has made little difference to our prosperity

Like almost everybody who voted for Brexit, I wanted to leave the EU with a trade deal. I certainly assumed that we would: it is in both sides’ interests, and EU manufacturers and farmers do especially well from the present arrangements.

I thought the Government would negotiate robustly and sensibly, following Vote Leave’s advice not to trigger Article 50 until the outlines of a deal had been agreed, all the while preparing for a hard exit. I expected the EU to realise that a refusal to play ball would mean a calamitous financial, defence and security hit.

It wasn’t to be. The abject lack of leadership provided by the Prime Minister, the Government’s staggering refusal to leverage the UK’s strengths, its bovine nastiness on the rights of EU citizens and, of course, the fact that so many on the UK side were trying to reverse Brexit, all combined to deliver the greatest failure of British statecraft since Suez.

The EU was emboldened into laying a series of traps into which we jumped enthusiastically, with what ought to have been the minor issue of Northern Ireland’s border turned into a case study in technocratic sabotage.

What now? Tory Remainers are in full swing, threatening either a delay or permanent membership of the customs union and single market – in other words, no Brexit – if MPs don’t sign up to the Prime Minister’s appalling deal. We must hope that, against all the odds, Parliament doesn’t fall for this madness.

Like most Leave voters, my position has hardened. I still don’t relish the idea of leaving without a deal, but I’m now, for the first time, reconciled to doing so. As matters stand, a so-called no-deal (in reality, we’ve already agreed lots of mini-deals) would be our least bad option. It wouldn’t be pretty, especially for one or two industries, but would probably cost just 1-2 per cent of GDP.

Ifo, the German think tank, is even more optimistic: it believes the cost of a no-deal accompanied by radical tariff cuts would be only 0.48 per cent of GDP. Indeed, the Government’s reported plan to eliminate 80-90 cent of tariffs, maintaining protection in only a handful of sectors, would dramatically reduce the net costs of departure. There can be no contest between a Hotel California Brexit or the greatest unilateral reductions in tariffs since the repeal of the Corn Laws.

Even the Bank of England believes the side-agreements it has signed and other preparations have halved the cost of no deal compared to three months ago (and that is before tariff cuts and other, as yet unannounced, palliative measures). The downsides of a clean Brexit have been massively exaggerated, as have the benefits of single market and customs union membership.

Excellent!

7 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I think there is very little doubt that (much of) the UK could do well outside the EU.  The measures suggested are sensible (cut corporation tax, incentives for investment, freeze red tape and cut it, reduction in business rates and cost of employment, reduce most tariffs to (near or at) zero ....... are all good sense.  Other than the change to reverse benefits freeze, they are sound measures and I agree they are sensible.

Trouble is one of our main parties want to reverse existing cuts to corporation tax, increase tariffs and taxation, discourage and frighten off high earners and achievers - exactly the reverse of what is needed - That is why Labour would do far, FAR more damage to the country than either Brexit or no Brexit ever would.

I am NOT however in favour of ending benefits freeze (except in special needy cases).

Good post!

[Rewulf]

22 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I'm no expert, but I suspect "wishful" would be a good description of his thinking!

Apparently he IS an expert, and wishful thinking is what I call it , when someone doesnt get what they want, so they sulk and stamp their feet, thinking that this childish behaviour WILL let them get their own way 
Like I said ooh, a few pages back, Parliament cant just do what it wants, there are legal mechanisms and procedures that have to be adhered to.
At the moment the auto pilot is set for leaving the EU on the 29 th of this month, they voted for this.
Without piloting us onto the metaphorical rocks to stop it , this is whats going to happen, unless they vote for Mays deal.

They can try and delay, try and pull another poll, but  if May has pulled any good moves, its this one , where she has run the clock down, and manEUvred them into this position.
Next week will clarify, but I am fairly certain, that we still have no deal as a viable option, possibly the only option left ?

[oowee]

Centre for policy studies 🙂 Increase pensions, freeze Council Tax, end the benefits freeze, tax cuts for workers 🤣

What do you think the effects of reduced tariffs will be?

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, oowee said:

Centre for policy studies 🙂 Increase pensions, freeze Council Tax, end the benefits freeze, tax cuts for workers 🤣

What do you think the effects of reduced tariffs will be?

Labour government  Increase pensions, freeze or reduce council tax, increase benefits, tax cuts for workers, more mmigration, higher tax for business, but higher minimum wage,   nationalise utilities and transport, recruit 20,000 more police (pay them £20 a week, according to the Abbott) 'honour' the Brexit ref, but actually BRINO.

What do you think the effects of a Labour government will be ?

[oowee]

17 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Labour government  Increase pensions, freeze or reduce council tax, increase benefits, tax cuts for workers, more mmigration, higher tax for business, but higher minimum wage,   nationalise utilities and transport, recruit 20,000 more police (pay them £20 a week, according to the Abbott) 'honour' the Brexit ref, but actually BRINO.

What do you think the effects of a Labour government will be ?

I was thinking of Corbyn when I read the list. 

[pinfireman]

Here,s one for the Remoaners!

In the froth of the last few weeks, the hapless antics of the tiny remaining cabal of diehard anti-Brexit lawyers have almost been overlooked, as yet another legal challenge to Brexit was crushed. Jessica Simor QC was judged wrong on more or less every argument she tried to make as she went down in flames Jolyon-style…

Simor tried to seek a judicial review of May’s triggering of Article 50, arguing that it was unlawful because it was “based upon the result of a referendum that was itself unlawful as a result of corrupt and illegal practices, notably offences of overspending committed by those involved in the campaign to leave the EU”. Simor’s initial case had already been rejected in December, she appealed against this on seven grounds. The judges hearing the appeal shredded every single one…

Simor’s first ground was that the referendum failed to comply with Common Law due to “corrupt and illegal practices” and therefore “could not properly be taken to express the democratic will of the people”. The judge said he was “unable to accept [Simor’s] submission as even arguable”…

The judge rejected any notion that any breaches of the rules affected the outcome of the referendum result, stating “there is simply no evidential basis for the proposition that the breaches, or any of them, are material in the sense that, had they not occurred, the result of the referendum would have been different.” The car crash attempt from the Oxford Internet Institute to try to “prove” that Vote Leave’s alleged overspending had already been dismissed by the original judge as “essentially speculative and based on propositions that were patently unsound.” The Carole Cadwallader  crowd won’t enjoy hearing that…

To quote the Lord Justice Hickinbottom, “Ms Simor’s difficulties do not end there.” Simor submitted three other substantive grounds, trying to argue that May’s Article 50 notification was unlawful and that she was guilty of a “continuing failure to respond to the developing evidence of illegality in the EU referendum”, which were all also rejected by the judge as “unarguable”. Three further technical grounds were also dismissed. About as crushing a defeat as you can get…

The judge noted that “the Applicants clearly oppose the UK leaving the EU; and hold strong views to that effect”, before adding a warning that “Judicial review is not, and should not be regarded as, politics by another means.”

Source  Guido Fawkes. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Smacks of DESPERATION!!!!!!!!

[TIGHTCHOKE]

George Eustice is MP for Camborne, Redruth & Hayle, and is a former Minister of State at DEFRA.

The Prime Minister has less than a week to save her Government
First they tell you we should try to block it. Next they say that since its happening anyway, we should try to change it. Eventually, they say that while we didn’t get many changes, the Commission did give us something, so it would probably be bad etiquette to vote against it now, and we should therefore support it.

For anyone who has been a Minister in a Department like Defra, this is the familiar pattern of advice that comes from policy officials as a succession of EU dossiers meander their way through technical working groups. The existence of Qualified Majority Voting creates a particular dynamic and fosters a particular culture that leads to comfortable defeat. No one need take a hard decision to get up and walk out of the room. No one need worry that an agreement might never be reached. QMV means that everyone can have their say, and probably have a few crumbs to brandish back home, while the EU ploughs on relentlessly with its own agenda.

The reason our negotiations to leave the EU have got in to trouble is that we have played to their rules, and we have used the familiar tactics of being an EU member when we needed to adopt totally different ones. We have approached the negotiations as if we were in a safe space that would allow compromise and comfortable defeat, but defeat this time round will not be comfortable at all. We have given the impression that we believe we can only do what the EU grants us permission to do. Instead, we needed to behave like an independent country. Rather than asking ourselves how we might accommodate EU concerns and demands, we should have been asking ourselves how we could face down their demands.

If the Prime Minister’s deal does not pass next week, we must have the courage to take our freedom first and talk afterwards. We must not take No Deal off the table; instead, we should embrace No Deal. The EU has stated in terms that they will not even discuss a future partnership until after we have left. As always, this is dressed up as some kind of legal problem, but it’s deliberate. So let’s take them at face value and, if necessary, just head for the exit.

No Deal is a bit of a misnomer anyway. It doesn’t mean No Deal for evermore. What it really means is No Deal yet. In effect, it would morph into an informal nine month transition period, during which talks could continue and we could conclude a deal. We already know that there is no border infrastructure in Ireland, and we can reassure our Irish friends that the UK will definitely not be putting any up.

If we leave without a deal, we should give a unilateral undertaking to dynamically align all our regulations with the EU for a short period of nine months. If we do that, then the EU has the internal justification it seeks not to bother much with Border Inspection Posts and other infrastructure, while the talks continue. We have already decided what we will do. We will have a light touch approach to border checks, judging that if we trusted goods from the EU on the day before we left there is no reason not to the day after we have left. We will have a unilateral tariff schedule in the short term that stabilises prices and allows tariff-free trade to continue in most product lines. We will recognise everything from protected food names to fertiliser labels for a short transitional period.

The civil service has done a sterling job preparing for no deal. We are in the process of laying hundreds of Statutory Instruments to make retained EU law operable. There are a few that have been de-prioritised and will not be done by the end of March but, when I went through the small number that were being left behind, it was pretty clear that they were a collection of inconsequential rules that were either not particularly relevant to the UK anyway or were where alternative powers already existed.

In all of our no deal planning, the difference between a reasonable best case scenario and a reasonable worst case scenario really comes down to one thing: would the EU behave in a sensible and pragmatic way or will they behave recklessly and irresponsibly? If the former, there would be some bumps along the way, but things would essentially work out fine for both parties. If its the latter, things would indeed be much harder, but at least we would know where we stand. The only way to find out for sure is to do it and see.

Within Whitehall, fears that the EU would behave recklessly and irresponsibly in a No Deal scenario have receded in recent weeks. The body language from the EU has been very much signalling a willingness to have an informal understanding over a nine month transition period. For instance, they have already asked us whether we might dynamically align our regulations on food for a period of nine months and we have agreed, provided we are listed as a third country from day one to enable exports to continue. We have also learnt more about what is planned at Calais. The French have devised a plan that when lorries board in Dover they could be given colour coded windscreen posters to denote what sort of goods they are carrying so that things can flow more easily at the other end. Border inspection of foods probably won’t actually take place at Calais at all. Instead, a site has been identified six miles away from Calais to ensure there is no disruption to the port should queues develop.

There had been some concerns about whether a restriction on transport permits for lorries might affect the ability of British haulage companies to operate in the EU affecting logistics, but the latest indication is that there is likely to be flexibility with little change to current arrangements for a period of, you guessed it, nine months.

About a decade ago, I met Brigadier Ed Butler, who was the British Commander in Afghanistan at the time. I always remember him saying that British soldiers have all the training its possible to have, but that no amount of training can ever fully prepare a 19 year old for their first deployment in a theatre of war. It is only once they have done it that they become fully ready for the next mission. We are as ready as we are ever likely to be to leave the EU without an agreement. The only question is whether Parliament has what it takes to make the decision.