nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit Discussion Thread VI

johnnyskeleton

Hi folks, as Theresa May has won the vote of no confidence and we are heading into Brexit day early next year, I thought for the new thread people might give their summary of their views on Brexit to date before we get into the more day to day discussions.

So what do you think about what has happened so far? Who has come off well, who has come off badly?

Where do you think Brexit is going? What is going to be the likely impact on Ireland, Northern Ireland, the rest of the U.K. and the E.U. respectively?

Both this thread and the Mark V thread will remain open simultaneously for the next day or so and Mark V will be closed as it gets closer to the server busting 10,000 mark. Hopefully we can set down a solid foundation now for a top quality thread to come!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Seth Brundle

This could turn interesting: according to the Irish Times, the ownership structure of IAG, amongst others, needs to be over 50% EU based in order to fly freely aroind the EU and it looks like this may not be the case currently.

Brussels casts doubt on IAG’s no-deal Brexit flight plan

Brexit poses a challenge for some European carriers, which will have to show they are more than 50 per cent EU-owned and controlled to retain their flying rights in the bloc.

Certain companies – including IAG – have yet to ensure they will reach that threshold after Brexit, when UK nationals will no longer count towards the tally.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/brussels-casts-doubt-on-iag-s-no-deal-brexit-flight-plan-1.3751766

marno21

Corbyn leadership - a contradiction in terms if I ever saw one.

As pointed out above, the fact that Labour are losing popularity given the calamity that is the Tory party is clear indictment of him.

Peregrinus

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

No, they don't, they have a degree of representation but most of the power in the EU is not wielded by the European Parliament.

Most of the power in the UK is not weilded by the Westminster Parliament either (as current events show all too clearly). But the Westminster Parliament has the ultimate sanction of being able to remove the government. Just like the EU Parliament can remove the Commission.

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

And in the case of the UK, I think that it has the least number of MEPs in relation to its population of any member nation.

Nope. France has a lower ratio.

Peregrinus

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Members of the EU do surrender decisions to an institution they have no power over. It's the nature of the beast.

No, it's not. The EU is controlled by its member states.

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Why wouldn't democrats want to be able to change their government if they do not agree with its decisions.

They would. That's why the European Parliament has the power to fire the Commission.

Peregrinus

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Brits often have long fuses but they do not like being told what to do.

Nonsense. Brexiters are horrified at the thought that British people might be asked to form and express an opinion on the terms of Brexit. They just want Nanny Teresa to tell them all what the 2016 referendum meant and go ahead and do it, without troubling them to take and responsibility for it themselves.

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

I'm always mystified by the way that the Irish had the guts to stand up against the treaty of Lisbon being foisted upon them but then, a mere 16 months later, you caved in. Why?

Because changes were made to accommodate our concerns.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, plently of them (on both sides) are very despondent about it. On one view the Brexit movement has long been fuelled by people who think that British politics, and the British political system, haven't worked for them or for people like them for a long time, and are angry about that. And now they're matched by people who look at the clown-car-heading-for-a-cliff that is the UK political system attempting to engage with Brexit, and who also conclude that, yeah, the British political system is quite seriously broken. It's possibly one of the few things you'd find widespread agreement on that spans the Leaver/Remainer divide.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't think driving the clown car off the cliff is going to improve matters.

Don't worry. At the last minute the clown car is going to swerve away from the cliff, drive into a tree and burst into flames.

jm08

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Brits often have long fuses but they do not like being told what to do.

I'm always mystified by the way that the Irish had the guts to stand up against the treaty of Lisbon being foisted upon them but then, a mere 16 months later, you caved in. Why?

Because the EU gave Ireland a legal guarantee on the concessions it wanted (generally on neutrality, taxation, abortion and size of Commission - every country to have a Commissioner).

You can read about it here:
https://www.iiea.com/publication/lisbon-the-irish-guarantees-explained/

So what you are saying is that Brits are stubborn - prepared to cut off their noses to spite their faces!

mickoneill31

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Brits often have long fuses but they do not like being told what to do.

I'm always mystified by the way that the Irish had the guts to stand up against the treaty of Lisbon being foisted upon them but then, a mere 16 months later, you caved in. Why?

Its common for foreigners to be mystified as the way its reported abroad its frequently said that we were made to vote twice.
During the campaign there were "exaggerations" on the no side. The Irish government went back to the EU and got some guarantees to alleviate these. Then they went back to the people. The people, being adults, have the capacity to change their minds and did so. It's something you can do when stuff is clarified or fixed for you. Most Irish people don't really ideologically stick to a position and will vote for the way that benefits them most.

Zubeneschamali

J Mysterio wrote: »

You can have all the control you want when your country is lying in ruins. Not so great then.

It is a symptom of that post-Imperial attitude we were talking about earlier. The Brits were in control of the Empire: a quarter of the world map was pink. (Yes, Brexiteers on the street have referred to this in vox pops).

So after the UK "won" WWII (at Dunkirk) and lost the empire, they decided they would control the Commonwealth. When the rest of the commonwealth were ungrateful for this leadership, they decided they would join the EU and lead Europe.

And now the idea seems to be to join the 3rd world and lead that.

Zubeneschamali

mickoneill31 wrote: »

During the campaign there were "exaggerations" on the no side. The Irish government went back to the EU and got some guarantees to alleviate these. Then they went back to the people.

As an example Brits might understand from experience, imagine a lifelong anti-EU bandwagon rider and a cartoon old Etonian buffoon had driven around Ireland in a bus with No To EU Army Conscription! on it during the first campaign, and when surveyed, many voters said EU army conscription was their big issue, even though it was an utter lie.

Well, we just got the EU to guarantee no EU army conscription, and people's worries were dealt with, we had another vote and got the opposite result.

You should try it.

rusty the athlete

While last nights vote in the House of Commons seems to be the first sign of common sense since the wretched brexit referendum, its more of an expression of 20 or so pragmatic tories rather than a game changer. May is peculiarly adept in devising maneuvers to circumvent what Parliament wants, such as pulling the meaningful vote before Christmas. Also bear in mind the majority last night was a mere 7. Who knows what additional tricks lurk in the warped sorceresses hat, no doubt all will be revealed in the next few weeks. Encouragingly the brexiteers seem genuinely rattled, the hysterical Daily Express headline today being 'They Do Really Want to Steal Your Brexit'.

Zubeneschamali

rusty the athlete wrote: »

its more of an expression of 20 or so pragmatic tories rather than a game changer.

May's deal will fail. These 20 tories will not allow No Deal. No new deal is possible before Brexit day.

They will simply have to withdraw A50.

Peregrinus

rusty the athlete wrote: »

While last nights vote in the House of Commons seems to be the first sign of common sense since the wretched brexit referendum, its more of an expression of 20 or so pragmatic tories rather than a game changer. May is peculiarly adept in devising maneuvers to circumvent what Parliament wants, such as pulling the meaningful vote before Christmas. Also bear in mind the majority last night was a mere 7. Who knows what additional tricks lurk in the warped sorceresses hat, no doubt all will be revealed in the next few weeks. Encouragingly the brexiteers seem genuinely rattled, the hysterical Daily Express headline today being 'They Do Really Want to Steal Your Brexit'.

Given the government's majority, 20 pragmatic tories willing to vote against the government could well be a game-changer.

The particular issue at stake in this vote is not hugely significant in itself, but what the vote does mean is that there is a majority in the house willing to vote against the government in order to avert a no-deal Brexit, even if they don't know what the alternative is. In short, there is a majority who would rule out no-deal Brexit a priori, and require whatever is eventually delivered to be drawn from the menu of options that remain.

And that should give the ERG pause for thought. For, if we rule out no-deal Brexit, what remains is (a) Brexit on May's terms, or (b) no Brexit. (Any other possibility is just a fantasy at this point, and refinements like "ask for an A50 extension" dont' change the options, just the date on which the choice has to be made.) And this in turn means that if the ERG are successful in torpedoing May's Brexit, the likely upshot is no Brexit at all. Which should make them think twice about torpedoing May's Brexit.

Christy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

rusty the athlete wrote: »

its more of an expression of 20 or so pragmatic tories rather than a game changer.

May's deal will fail. These 20 tories will not allow No Deal. No new deal is possible before Brexit day.

They will simply have to withdraw A50.

Except that requires agreement. No deal is the result of not agreeing with a deal. Everyone is trying to be the hurler on the ditch here. They just want to say that had people listened to them before exiting it would have been fine while also ensuring their name does not get associated with whatever deal gets blamed for the resulting mess.

lawred2

Peregrinus wrote: »

Given the government's majority, 20 pragmatic tories willing to vote against the government could well be a game-changer.

The particular issue at stake in this vote is not hugely significant in itself, but what the vote does mean is that there is a majority in the house willing to vote against the government in order to avert a no-deal Brexit, even if they don't know what the alternative is. In short, there is a majority who would rule out no-deal Brexit a priori, and require whatever is eventually delivered to be drawn from the menu of options that remain.

And that should give the ERG pause for thought. For, if we rule out no-deal Brexit, what remains is (a) Brexit on May's terms, or (b) no Brexit. (Any other possibility is just a fantasy at this point, and refinements like "ask for an A50 extension" dont' change the options, just the date on which the choice has to be made.) And this in turn means that if the ERG are successful in torpedoing May's Brexit, the likely upshot is no Brexit at all. Which should make them think twice about torpedoing May's Brexit.

This sounds like a positive development to me

Peregrinus

lawred2 wrote: »

This sounds like a positive development to me

Me too. But, as yet, only a modestly positive development.

Russman

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

May's deal will fail. These 20 tories will not allow No Deal. No new deal is possible before Brexit day.

They will simply have to withdraw A50.

But do they not have to introduce new legislation into the HoC in order to avert a no-deal ? Can a cross party group of somewhat sane MPs do so against the wishes of their parties ?

Peregrinus

Russman wrote: »

But do they not have to introduce new legislation into the HoC in order to avert a no-deal ?

Depends on how they propose to avert it.

If they want to avert it by accepting and ratifying May's deal, yes, that requires major legislation. But of course the government wants May's deal ratified, and intends to introduce the required legislation.

If they want to avert it by revoking A50 notice, that requires some legislation (namely, amendment or repeal of the EU Withdrawal Act) but it mainly requires the government to deliver the appropriate notification to Brussels on behalf of the UK. Expectation is that if HoC voted to terminate Brexit, govt would comply or would resign to allow the installation of a govt willing to compy. If govt refused to do either of these things a constitutional crisis would ensue, probably leading in short order to a general election.

Russman wrote: »

Can a cross party group of somewhat sane MPs do so against the wishes of their parties ?

Averting no-deal by ratifying May's deal is not against the wishes of the Tory Party.

Averting no-deal by revoking A50 notice is against the wishes of (the leadership of) both major parties. Probably unrealistic to think of this getting a majority in the commons unless the leadership of (at least) one major party changes its position and backs it.

Thomas_IV

Peregrinus wrote: »

Given the government's majority, 20 pragmatic tories willing to vote against the government could well be a game-changer.

The particular issue at stake in this vote is not hugely significant in itself, but what the vote does mean is that there is a majority in the house willing to vote against the government in order to avert a no-deal Brexit, even if they don't know what the alternative is. In short, there is a majority who would rule out no-deal Brexit a priori, and require whatever is eventually delivered to be drawn from the menu of options that remain.

And that should give the ERG pause for thought. For, if we rule out no-deal Brexit, what remains is (a) Brexit on May's terms, or (b) no Brexit. (Any other possibility is just a fantasy at this point, and refinements like "ask for an A50 extension" dont' change the options, just the date on which the choice has to be made.) And this in turn means that if the ERG are successful in torpedoing May's Brexit, the likely upshot is no Brexit at all. Which should make them think twice about torpedoing May's Brexit.

They know what the alternative is but they won't have it because the alternative to either May's deal or no deal is a BrexitRef2 which would solve the problem for parliament for a time by giving the matter back to the electorate to vote again. That on the terms of the deal or for the reason that no deal is certainly the ultimate economic catastrophe to give the choice for Remain as well. But there is no majority for that in the Commons either and Corbyn is still refusing a back up of a BrexitRef2 cos he doesn't want to have it, rather ignoring the growing demands for a change of course on that matter from within his own Party (the whole of it not just the PLP).

Sure, May's deal would avoid a hard Brexit but the UK will be worse off with no deal. The better solution would be for the UK to remain in the EU but for this one would had to find a cure for the deluded mental stage of the Leavers who are still kept in their BE2.0 dream.

It is hard to predict what the result of the vote on that deal in the Commons will be on 15th January. It could be well the case that it will be voted down which leaves Parliament in the same situation as of today, but with the fact that the UK exits the EU on 29th March 2019 with or with no deal unless the UK govt would revoke her Art. 50 application unilaterally and stays on as an EU member state. Whether such a step would also need the approval of Parliament by another meaningful vote is another matter.

Fact is, time is running fast and running out for the UK govt and the uncertainty remains, maybe to the very last minute.

Peregrinus

Thomas_IV wrote: »

They know what the alternative is but they won't have it because the alternative to either May's deal or no deal is a BrexitRef2 which would solve the problem for parliament for a time by giving the matter back to the electorate to vote again . . .

Brexitref 2 isn't an independent alternative; just a different way of choosing between the alternatives the UK already has.

In theory a Parliament opposed to no deal could (a) rule out no deal, and (b) refer the remaining choice to the people in a referendum putting the question "do you want to ratify May's deal, or would you rather stay in the EU?". In practice I think the political objections to that are enormous, and probably insurmountable. So if Parliament is going to take it on itself to rule out "no deal" I think it's going to have to step up to the plate and do the rest of what is, after all, its job and make a choice between the remaining alternatives.

Thomas_IV wrote: »

It is hard to predict what the result of the vote on that deal in the Commons will be on 15th January . . .

I think the general expectation is that May's deal will be defeated on 15 Jan; the only question is the margin of defeat.

May's strategy then is to hope that Events will happen which will enable a second vote with a favourable outcome. The Event she wants is for the EU to cave, and offer the UK some significant variation to the WA which will be enough for the government to claim a Famous Victory for Britain, and for MPs to change their minds.

That Event is not going to happen. But, as it becomes apparent that it won't happen, a different Event may happen; currency crisis, stock market meltdown, Tory party funders and influencers beating MPs about the head and neck with broken bottles until they see sense, that kind of thing. This Event, coupled with a token move from the EU involving honeyed words and blandishments about how very, very temporary the backstop really is (which can be hailed as a Famous Victory for Britain) may then be enough to enable a successful seocond vote.

If that doesn't work, it's time to line up the ambulances at the bottom of the cliff, because the UK is coming over the top. I honestly don't see A50 being revoked.

Zubeneschamali

Christy42 wrote: »

Except that requires agreement.

It just requires a vote, same as last night.

Leroy42

TM seems to be aiming to get assurances from the EU in terms of the completion of a FTA before the end of the extended transition, therefore no need for the backstop.

But I cannot see why the EU would agree to that. The only thing that has made this process move at all from the UK is the deadline, they have shown no inclination to solve anything on their own. An assurance would basically tie the EU to the UK deadline, the UK could effectively do nothing for the transition period and demand that the EU come up with a deal they agree with or all bets are off. The UK would be completely in the driving seat, able to demand or reject whatever they pleased in the knowledge that the EU would have to, before the deadline deliver of risk losing everything.

A lot will depend on the scale of the defeat next week. Based on the recent confidence vote, some 100 odd MP's don't like the deal. Will TM have moved many of them over to her side in the last few weeks? She has offered nothing to them, and there is no indication that they are moving. On top of that you have the 10 DUP. So she could be looking at 100+ defeat.

A defeat on that scale means she would need substantial movement from the EU to get it passed, something the EU has already rules out, but the EU are nothing if not pragmatic.

A closer defeat <50, would be far better as it forces those 50 to start looking around at how steady the opposition to the deal is, not wanting to be the last guy left. It would also signal to the EU that more minor chances would be acceptable, an easier position for the EU to resolve.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It just requires a vote, same as last night.

It requires a vote, and the government to give effect to the vote, by (a) introducing legislation to amend or repeal the EU Withdrawal Act, plus (b) delivering the appropriate notification to Brussels.

Refusal by the government to comply (or to resign) would trigger a constitutional crisis. But I wouldn't rule it out.

seamus

At this stage, a second referendum is off the table. To get there you need to:

- Draft the legislation to hold the referendum (weeks)
- Draft the legislation to revoke notification (in parallel)
- Debate the referendum bill & vote on it (days)
- Allow meaningful time for campaigning (weeks)
- Hold the vote & count it (days)
- Assuming "remain" takes it, then you have to debate the revocation bill, vote on it and bring it to the EU

Unless there's a dramatic shift in Westminster in the next week, then it's just not feasible. You could theoretically ask the EU to delay Brexit while you hold a new referendum, but I'm not sure the EU has the appetite for that. It's just more uncertainty on top of what we've got.

May is starving the Brexiters out. Come next week there will realistically only be two options on the table; May's Deal or No Deal. There isn't time to arrange anything else.

As we now know, the volume of MPs who will allow no deal to happen is dropping rapidly. As Peregrinus notes, ideologically the only acceptable options are May's deal or no Brexit.

And the intersection of those two sets is May's deal. It's the only option which is practically available and ideologically acceptable to Parliament.

Leroy42

I would agree Seamus, except for the extension of A50. I think the EU would be open to such an idea based on a 2nd ref (which I don't see happening, at least not with a remain option) or a GE.

If the 2nd ref is purely on the basis of Mays Deal or No deal I don't see the EU agreeing to an extension as that has been available for a few months now and extending A50 actually creates quite a few issues for the EU and they probably won't see it as worth it. In terms of the EU seeing an extension as allowing them more time to prepare for No Deal themselves, they have already issues their No Deal planning for items such as airtravel etc so there really isn't a need for a few weeks extension.

I think I might actually be arguing with my own point at this stage, that is the effect all this is having on me!

BonnieSituation

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Brits often have long fuses but they do not like being told what to do.

I'm always mystified by the way that the Irish had the guts to stand up against the treaty of Lisbon being foisted upon them but then, a mere 16 months later, you caved in. Why?

I love how from a Brexiter standpoint that Ireland standing up for itself and getting those concessions was seen as a bad thing and that voting for a second time thereafter showed us for lapdogs we are...

Don't they realise that us ratifying Lisbon gave way for a member state to leave the EU which heretofore they couldn't do!

It's almost like they're being willfully ignorant. Surely not?

intellectual dosser

I think A50 would be postponed (3 months) rather than be revoked any time soon. It would be an easier political play both in Westminster and in Brussels. There was a link to a very good Twitter thread posted here a few days ago that explained that revoking A50 would put the clock back to two years if it were to be resubmitted after the UK got its act together.

Postponing A50 would require bilateral approval but I don't think there would be much opposition from the EU27 as long as there was an objective served. It would buy time to thrash out some of the suggestions made here around second referendum, or even a general election, and finally figure out the path the UK wants to take.

Christy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

Except that requires agreement.

It just requires a vote, same as last night.

Yes but it requires a vote on a specific subject. It is not enough to say they don't want no deal. They have to say they will endorse May's deal or whatever.

Russman

intellectual dosser wrote: »

I think A50 would be postponed (3 months) rather than be revoked any time soon. It would be an easier political play both in Westminster and in Brussels. There was a link to a very good Twitter thread posted here a few days ago that explained that revoking A50 would put the clock back to two years if it were to be resubmitted after the UK got its act together.

Postponing A50 would require bilateral approval but I don't think there would be much opposition from the EU27 as long as there was an objective served. It would buy time to thrash out some of the suggestions made here around second referendum, or even a general election, and finally figure out the path the UK wants to take.

I would imagine if they revoked A50 and then resubmitted within a short ish time period, any goodwill would evaporate and possibly the existing WA would be off the table and the EU might say "right so, off ye go, best of luck"

Thomas_IV

Peregrinus wrote: »

Brexitref 2 isn't an independent alternative; just a different way of choosing between the alternatives the UK already has.

In theory a Parliament opposed to no deal could (a) rule out no deal, and (b) refer the remaining choice to the people in a referendum putting the question "do you want to ratify May's deal, or would you rather stay in the EU?". In practice I think the political objections to that are enormous, and probably insurmountable. So if Parliament is going to take it on itself to rule out "no deal" I think it's going to have to step up to the plate and do the rest of what is, after all, its job and make a choice between the remaining alternatives.

I think the general expectation is that May's deal will be defeated on 15 Jan; the only question is the margin of defeat.

May's strategy then is to hope that Events will happen which will enable a second vote with a favourable outcome. The Event she wants is for the EU to cave, and offer the UK some significant variation to the WA which will be enough for the government to claim a Famous Victory for Britain, and for MPs to change their minds.

That Event is not going to happen. But, as it becomes apparent that it won't happen, a different Event may happen; currency crisis, stock market meltdown, Tory party funders and influencers beating MPs about the head and neck with broken bottles until they see sense, that kind of thing. This Event, coupled with a token move from the EU involving honeyed words and blandishments about how very, very temporary the backstop really is (which can be hailed as a Famous Victory for Britain) may then be enough to enable a successful seocond vote.

If that doesn't work, it's time to line up the ambulances at the bottom of the cliff, because the UK is coming over the top. I honestly don't see A50 being revoked.

Like I said before, it's hard to predict what the result will be. Expectations are currently also 'idle' speculations. What is certainly to come is what I have highlighted in bold in your post. We've seen it before in the wake of the BrexitRef 2016 when the £ got a bashing on the international financial markets. This lasted for a couple of days, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, things will get worse and include the other reactions you've mentioned.

MPs do have to make up their minds but they are still under the pressure of their own party whips. The opposition is still determined to vote down the deal and the ERG is with them as is the DUP. It'll depend on those MPs who vote against the line of their party and this remains to be seen.

The EU isn't about to give in and make more concessions to the UK and on the matter of the Irish border the stance is clear. The UK would had to provide the facilities for that if it would come to a hard border which is unacceptable for the EU and the govt of the Republic of Ireland. That alone makes the backstop a matter of at least a mid term run, speaking in decades, not years. With no deal, the backstop remains either in the balance or a hard border will occure.

I have been following the first round of the Brexit deal debate in the Commons in December last year, I won't be following this one which is about to start today and to run for five days. That is because I don't expect to get anything much new from it than what already has been said to it. PM May only postponed the vote to gain time for her but unless she gets a majority for her deal by a great deal of luck, it was to no avail. Afterwards she's at the end of the road but as I have learned to know her by her twists and turns, she'll not resign upon a lost vote by herself, she'll be forced to step down. This leaves the question of who's going to replace her, cos a snap GE is also not on the table, though Corbyn wants that more than anything else.

The UK govt and Parliament are running in circles and neither part has the courage to break the circle and give it back to the electorate to decide a second time on the matter. This time on the basis of the facts on what is on offer and the consequences that result from either choice.

What Brexiteers fear most is that an uncertain amount of voters who voted Leave in 2016 (and who are still alive) already had a change of mind and would vote for Remain in a BrexitRef2 which would lead to a majority for Remain and thus making Brexit obsolete. That is what the UK govt wants to avoid at all costs but a BrexitRef2 would be the democratic way to solve that problems because the situation of today has changed in compare to 2016. That is because now the electorate would know on what they would vote in concrete terms and conditions, whereas in 2016 it was all nothing but delusions and wishful thinking (that hasn't changed in the minds of the Brexiteers at all).

A voting down of the deal is still more likely these days, but May has often faced situations that meant to be her political end but with luck and the failure of her opponents, she always survived. She might survive this one as well cos her opponents are all cowards and everybody who considers to replace her as PM is aware that he or she would had to carry the filthy Brexit bucket him- / herself to the end. That is a matter nobody seems to really call for. It is in fact all just hot air talk and theatre by them and also by Corbyn and his far-left Brexit chums. But none of them has the guts to bring this Brexit charade to a final end with as less damage as possible.

Brexiteers and among them also UK govt members are always pretending that after Brexit the whole world outside of the EU is just waiting to negotiate and strike trade deals with the UK. A couple of weeks (or even already months) back last year I noticed that some of them was mentioning that they would have a list with '40 potential countries for new trade agreements'. Which countries they are was still kept secret. Why is that? IMO it is just another Brexiter Propaganda rus like all the other crap they have spouted for years. It lacks much substance and that is because everybody in his right mind who has been following this Brexit Charade for the past 2 1/2 years can clearly presume that the way the UK govt has performed itself during the negotiations period with the EU there isn't much trust and reliability expected from these potential trade deal countries towards the UK.

Brexit has done that much damage to the international reputation of the UK like nothing else had done before. Economical strong CoN countries have already signalled to the UK that their trade bounds are with countries closer to themselves. Like Canada with the USA and now with the EU. Australia has also told that they have closer bounds with countries around the South Pacific and Asia. This Norway ++ idea was already rejected by the Norwegian govt last month, telling the UK that they don't want the Brits back in EFTA and would object such a Norway ++ solution for the UK as alternative to the deal with the EU at hand.

This was more than often in the news and for every politician to take note of it. What were they doing? Sleeping or simply ignoring the response from other countries in regards to the Brexiters ideas of a post-Brexit UK? The MPs in the Commons should consider that more carefully and get a clear view on the reality which isn't that welcoming to them as the wishful thinking of Brexiteers tells.

I think and really assume that these potential trade deal countries are more economically weaker countries than the UK of today. For the big global players like the USA, China and Russia, there is only to say that it will be them who dictate the terms and conditions to the UK and that means take it or leave it. One only has to look at the leaders of those countries to know that they would have the upper hand in any trade deal negotiations. Worst would be with Trump, but not much less worse with Putin and China.

To ignore all that is just as much a folly as Brexit is itself.