@shadowen Said
Neither May nor her team ever seriously contemplated leaving without a deal. It's why her government spent so little time and money preparing for no deal. Why prepare for something you believe will never happen as you will not accept such an outcome. It's why for example Hammond never bothered to advise bushiness to prepare for a no deal scenario. Compare the actions of May and her Government with that of BJ. His government did more in 2 weeks to prepare for a no deal exit than May did in 2 years. As for what other deal would have been acceptable? Well we can see now that the answer is none. Those MP's committed to honouring the people's vote were never going to accept a deal resembling May's whilst remainer MP's who put themselves before the people either won't accept any deal that takes the UK out of the EU, or will only accept a deal that effectively keeps the UK tied to the EU.
Once again we blame the powerless minority power for the inability of the majority coalition to get it's act together. The whole point of the majority coalition is to make the minority powers completely irrelevant. If it can't achieve that then there's a cohesion problem in the coalition.
Quote:
Approx 80% of people in the 2017 general election voted in politicians from parties whose manifesto stated that they would respect the 2016 people's vote. Now that it is apparent that many MP's do not reflect their interests (like they thought they did) most people want fresh elections. Only the very MP's who aren't acting in the way they said they would when they were elected are currently refusing to let the people hold them to account.
Which doesn't mean the same thing to you as it does to them, clearly.
Quote:
Firstly, leaving without a deal cant be a threat. It needs to be a genuine option or it won't have a positive influence on negotiations. Now the simple reality is that both the EU and the UK would prefer that an exit deal was agreed upon for a variety of reasons. If however the EU say we are prepared to leave without a deal whilst the UK say they are not then instantly the EU have a significant advantage in negotiations. By making it clear that the UK will not leave without a deal they are in effect telling the EU that they will accept a bad deal over no deal. If however the UK is genuinely prepared to leave without a deal then the EU is far more likely to make compromises in order to facilitate a deal (as a deal is their preferred option). In the end both parties may choose to walk away if an acceptable compromise can't be reached, but a deal that is seen to be acceptable to both parties is more likely to be reached in instances where both parties are negotiating on a level playing field. Saying you will accept any deal simply gives the other team all the power and guarantees you will be bent over...
Except that the EU and UK were NEVER negotiating on a level playing field, and being willing to walk away does not change that fact. The only scenario in which being told the UK will walk away actually helps their position is if the EU is willing to compromise their own values to get a deal out of the UK. They very clearly have not been.
May's Deal was actually better than what I was expecting to come out of those talks. Of course, since no one liked it, that's currently a moot point.