Maybe Bremain is not the best thing after all

[Hobosapien]

Managed no-deal is the contingency plans EU have already given details of (certain things will be put in place to handle key areas until at least end of 2019), and UK will do same to ensure some continuation of service, as people and goods will still need to move across borders come next April whatever is agreed or not in the meantime.

So it's good that government is at least making noises of preparing for no-deal even if it's all part of the ploy to force MPs to support May's deal after the impact of a no-deal starts to dawn on them. It also may force EU to consider changes to the backstop, if May has actually been less nebulous on what exactly UK would like changed.

[Whorty]

It's merely a question of what form of Brino the UK would like to have, as much fun as it is to discuss a "managed no deal".

"managed no deal" - another set of lies from the Brexit leaders. We either leave with a deal, or leave with no deal. A 'managed deal' is merely a deal FFS. And Leadsom is in cloud cuckoo land if she thinks the EU will let us leave with no deal, but then give us a controlled withdrawal agreement to make it less painful. If there is no deal, they will shaft us good and proper (and who can blame them?)

MPs need to decide which deal out of those on offer (May, Norway, Canada, WTO/No deal) and just vote one through in Jan. Forget the 2nd ref, forget remaining, just vote for one and lets move on from this mess.

Us contractors need to know what the leave deal is so that our clients can start to plan their projects and put some decent cash into transformation work that they then need expensive .... sorry, value added .... contractors to manage 2019 is gonna be a boom time for us, let's get this moving now so I can make my bank manager happy

[BlasterBates]

I reckon by the time they finished negotiations on a "Managed no deal" if that did happen it will still end up as Brino.

[BlasterBates]

It's merely a question of what form of Brino the UK would like to have, as much fun as it is to discuss a "managed no deal".

[Cirrus]

From http://www.cityam.com/assets/uploads...ae1a333aed.pdf

As A Dutch Anglophile
and a committed European,
my natural sympathies
lie with those
currently aiming to preserve
the ties that bind the UK to
the European Union.
What the massive street protests
and the passionate people’s vote
campaign make clear is that many
Brits are as attached to their newlywon
European rights as they are to
their old British freedoms.
If I were in their position, I too
would use every possible tool at my
disposal to avoid losing the right to
live, love, study, and work anywhere
within the borders of the
continent of Europe. These are my
European liberties, and you would
have to pry them “from my cold,
dead hands”, as they say.
Given my sympathies, I suppose
that it would be logical for me to
support a second referendum. And
in fairness, none of the arguments
given by Brexiteers against the idea
of another vote make any sense to
me. They are transparently dishonest,
motivated by the fear that the
original Brexit result might be overturned
a second time around.
Take, for example, the claim that
a second referendum would be
“undemocratic”. Provided that it
meets a number of basic criteria
about the wording of the question
and equal access of both sides to
voters and the media, a plebiscite
by its very nature cannot be an affront
to democracy.
The second argument against another
vote is slightly more subtle,
but no less fallacious: “people have
already voted”. Well yes they have.

But only on the general issue of
Leave versus Remain, not on the actual
details of the kind of Brexit
agreed upon by the UK government
and the EU27.
It is perfectly legitimate to ask the
electorate if it really prefers Brexit
as it would actually work out to the
current situation.
The third argument is the Leave
equivalent of Project Fear: “it
would be deeply divisive”. Yes, it
would – but so would not holding
a second referendum. If there is
one guarantee, it is that the UK will
remain bitterly divided about
Brexit for many years to come.
“But things would get even
worse.” Worse than they already
are? You have family members and
lifelong friends no longer talking to
each other this Christmas because
they “voted the wrong way”, and
government talk of rationing, of
troops in the streets, of forcing Ireland
to its knees, of Scotland
threatening to secede.
And that’s if Brexit is implemented.
Short of actual civil war,
it’s hard to see how things could
get worse.
None of the arguments against
the staging of a second referendum
presented by its opponents make
any sense.
But that doesn’t mean that it
would be a good idea. It would, in
fact, be a really bad idea. Terrible,
even, if its advocates were victorious
and Brexit were averted.
Because the UK staying in the EU
after everything that has happened
since 2016 would be nothing short
of catastrophic.
This shock about-turn would cre
ate a permanently aggrieved minority
of close to 50 per cent of the
British electorate. This aggrieved
voting bloc would inevitably be
served by a virulently anti-EU media
and openly eurosceptic politicians,
all fired up with renewed fury that
Brexit had slipped from their grasp.
The most effective ones would rise
to the top of the Conservative party
– which would be destined to become
the main vehicle for politically organised euroscepticism – far
more so than it is already.
The Tories would duly end up
electing a series of hardline anti-EU
leaders. And since the Conservative
party is still Britain’s natural party
of government, these leaders
would inevitably become the UK’s
Prime Ministers.
Britain, are you ready for Prime
Minister Jacob Rees-Mogg?
The EU certainly isn’t. It has
plenty of experience dealing with
awkward members of the European
Council, but it has never had a
Prime Minister of a large member
state openly committed to blowing
the whole thing up. And it really
doesn’t want to find out what that
is like either.
So to my pro-EU friends in Britain,
I say this: reject Theresa May’s deal
if you must, but please don’t
plunge the EU into the chaos that
would be the result of continued
UK membership.
Why not turn your efforts towards
urging the government to take the
next best thing in the form of EEA
membership? You’d keep all your
European freedoms, and would stay
as closely linked to the EU as a nonmember
state can be.
And of course you’d be perfectly
within your rights to fight on,
under the banner of “Rejoin or die”.
If you did so, I’d come and march
with you. Because your future may
well be in the EU, as part of the European
family of nations. Just not
right now. Please