Compromise Movements
- Boris Johnson has had a series of good discussions with Ireland.
- Out of the blue, Jean Claude Juncker gave an optimistic interview even to the point of scrapping the backstop.
Eurointelligence has an excellent discussion this morning on the political events. Emphasis is mine.
For a short moment last night, it appeared that the whole Brexit process was about to be solved. We don’t normally care much about interviews here at Eurointelligence, but Jean-Claude Juncker was well worth watching on Sophy Ridge’s show on Sky News.
He confirmed that a deal is possible. He said no-deal was catastrophic also for the EU. He was very clear that a deal would be based on a single market for agrifoods, with borders checks away from the border. He said the backstop was not sacrosanct, only a means to an end. And he said that he works on the assumption that Brexit will happen.
It looks to us that we are moving towards a deal vs. no-deal scenario by the end of the month. The whole dispute currently unfolding about prorogation and the Benn legislation is very much a sideshow. We will report on the UK Supreme Court’s ruling next week when it happens, but we are thinking the political process is much more important than procedure.
If a deal were agreed, we assume that the EU will agree to a demand by Boris Johnson to foreclose formally the option of an extension – except a short technical extension to make time for ratification. We have been arguing that the main loophole in the Benn bill is not procedural but political. The biggest loophole in the legislation is the European Council, whose operations are poorly understood in the UK, and not understood at all by the legal profession which obsesses with domestic procedure.
What would the UK parliament do? Would they try to test whether the EU is bluffing? This is quite possible, but that game is dangerous. They could vote against the deal, and the next day pass a vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson. But Johnson is at that point under no obligation to resign. Under the fixed-term parliament act, the parliament could pass a vote of confidence in another MP with a specific mandate to seek an extension for an election. But would they? Would the EU relent, having committed itself in a Council conclusion not to do so? We cannot answer these hypothetical questions, but note that this would be a risky course that might backfire on those who take it. Would that course of action really advance the election prospects of Jeremy Corbyn?
Maybe the answer to all these questions is Yes. Stranger things have already happened in the Brexit process. But time is playing against hardline Remainers. We also get a sense from Juncker’s interview and other reports that the EU’s patience with the Remainer strategy is wearing thin. We think what tipped the balance was the EU’s gradual awareness of Labour’s policy that it would negotiate a deal only to allow Labour ministers to campaign against it. Labour obviously formulated this policy having not even consulted with the EU.
The big question is: could an agreed withdrawal agreement find a majority in the House of Commons? The math of this situation is the same as it always was. Johnson will need to get the DUP on board, quell his own rebellion, have a larger number of Labour MPs to support the deal. He can probably count on the group around Stephen Kinnock. Kinnock and Caroline Flint MP yesterday visited Michel Barnier to talk about the chance of a new deal. The hard-core group of Labour MPs in favour of a deal is around a dozen, but there may be up to 20 or 30 Labour MPs who could support a deal.
But we don’t think the Labour Party or the other opposition parties will come to Johnson’s rescue. The Remain campaign yesterday issued a dossier to warn Labour MPs against the right-wing policies that would follow a deal.
One possibility is that MPs might choose to abstain. In doing so they would still distance themselves from Johnson’s deal, but without being accused of triggering no-deal.
What Happened?
- The EU now realizes Boris Johnson really wants a deal. Johnson may have been forced into that position by Parliament but that is the state of affairs.
- Boris Johnson, DUP, and Ireland are coming to terms on how to remove the backstop.
- The EU realizes the losses will not most be on the UK. Germany is outright scared as I stated from the beginning.
- The EU understands the Liberal Democrats will not win the election.
- The EU realizes that Boris Johnson is likely to win an election and the result will be No Deal unless it happens now.
- Labour’s position of promising a referendum with a pledge to campaign against it makes no sense to the EU (or any reasonable person).
Point six was likely the last straw but point three is what forced the issue. Still, this was all a no-go without point two.
Fair Deal Increasingly Likely
Removal of the backstop is now a given. That’s going to happen.
But the backstop is not the only odious thing. At a minimum, Johnson needs to insist on removal of language that puts the UK at the mercy of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
Johnson also needs to strive for a Canada-style deal. This does not have to be resolved now, just the groundwork.
The closer he can come to that, the better things will be for both the EU and the UK.
Finally, and importantly, the EU needs to come up with a deal that Parliament will ratify.
If the EU wants a deal, it has to bend.
Juncker signals the EU really wants a deal.
Increasing Odds of a Deal
Yesterday I wrote Increasing Odds of a Bad Brexit Deal as Liberal Democrats Leap Ahead of Labour
That is still true.
But the odds of a fair deal have increased as well.
Thus, the odds of No Deal have fallen.
Ironic Setup
I told people for months the EU would deal if someone would back them into a corner.
Many thought I was nuts. I don’t blame them but I have watched the EU in action for years and just like magic there is a compromise at the 11 hour.
That’s what is happening now.
Here’s the irony: The person backing the EU into a corner might not have been Boris Johnson, but rather Jeremy Corbyn running on the silly platform of promising a referendum and campaigning against it.
Remain is hopelessly split. The EU is not blind to that fact.
The EU was finally forced to consider this would drag on for years with the UK and the Brexit party disrupting European Parliament the whole time unless thew EU compromised or accepted no deal.
Not Over Yet
Many things can go wrong but the odds of a (both good and bad) are now rising.
Boris needs to negotiate carefully. The backstop is not the only issue.
Brexit Central discusses other issues Boris Johnson should beware resuscitating the ‘dead’ May deal – even if the EU agree to scrapping the backstop.
Binary Choice
Here’s the final irony.
Theresa May struggled for two years to produce a binary choice option for Parliament.
We may now finally have one thanks to the Tory revolt and and crazy stance of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
Johnson and the EU need to find a solution that can actually pass Parliament.
If things go to plan, Parliament will have to accept No Deal or whatever Johnson can work out.
Pressure is on both sides!
Which is precisely what it takes to get a fair deal.
Kiss Remain Goodbye
Kiss Remain goodbye, it is not in the binary choice.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
To me it looks like the EU is trying to play good cop; bad cop with Johnson. A week ago Barnier was hitting every media stop he could find to say that Johnson was not negotiating in good faith. Yesterday he softened his stance a bit, but between he and Junker they look like the classic good/bad cops.
34 minutes ago Johnson lost the court decision that prorogue was illegal.
Barnier is claiming this is a huge relief.
The EU commission declined comment saying it was an internal matter for the UK WINK WINK NOD NOD!
But Mr Verhofstadt, the Brexit lead for the EU’s elected legislature, goaded the prime minister over the decision.
“At least one big relief in the Brexit saga: the rule of law in the UK is alive and kicking. Parliaments should never be silenced in a real democracy,” he said.
“I never want to hear Boris Johnson or any other Brexiteer say again that the European Union is undemocratic.”
Where to now? We will see now just how chaotic Labour can actually get. And I am pretty sure the queen is not very happy to be made to look like an idiot who swallowed a lie from BJ, or else was biased and complicit with an unconstitutional move to shut down a “democratic” Parliament. Because those are the only two possible explanations for her approval of the prorogue.
My view on the EU position is that they see no deal approaching. They think that it will badly damage the UK and they don’t want to be blamed for it. So they keep saying that they want a deal so that if no deal happens, they can say that it is not their fault.
Regarding the impact of no deal on the EU, I have my doubts: I really can’t see what EU companies are buying from the UK but couldn’t buy from another country in the EU (it is just called switching supplier). And if there are a few things that can only be bought from the UK, it will still be possible to buy them (there will just be a delay at the border and a bit of taxes).
Also, people buying German cars in the UK would keep buying them, even with a bit of taxes and longer delivery times (you don’t buy a Mercedes for the price).
Overall, the UK represents less than 10% of other EU countries exports ; besides, after the Brexit, the UK will still need to import some supplies, and even if there is taxes, distance does matter in trades.
Bottom line: if there is no deal, the EU will not be hugely impacted, but the UK will be badly impacted. The EU doesn’t want to be blamed for whatever happens to the UK so it pretends to be working to avoid it (but not really believing in it).
Only UK politicians and UK journalists are claiming that the EU is just as impacted as the UK by the Brexit. Just read newspapers from the US or from China if you want to have an external appreciation on this point.
So, now what? Now you LIKE deals? I really don’t understand your position other than to constantly hope the EU crawls at Britain’s feet or collapses spontaneously. And now you suddenly claim that Johnson wanted a deal all along when you have been cheerleading for No Deal and claiming it would be the best solution.
If the EU gives up on the backstop, that does not mean it will accept an open border. It may simply give up on the backstop and close the Irish border, just like the British claim they want. The EU, whatever your imagination might say about their level of patience with Remainers (are you so desperate to sustain your fantasy and delusion that you now imagine the EU is angry with Remainers?), has no incentive to give the UK any kind of “fair” (I can’t recall if you ever traded anything, but who gives a rat’s ass about “fair”…you take a deal or leave it…”fair” is for whiners) deal. A preferential deal would push other marginal members to renegotiate and tear apart the EU. While this is something you, as an American living in a US state which is part of a Federal union, might want for reasons which have no relationship to the reality of Europeans living in Europe, it’s not what the EU wants.
Do you have a position? Or are you just flailing around like Johnson and hoping the EU ends up looking bad whatever the cost to Britain?
People wonder why I call the johnson a liar. They say don’t all politicians lie? Isn’t it normal? My answer to this is no it is not normal. In normal circumstances if someone calls a leading politician a liar the next step is an apology and withdrawal of the comment or an appearance in court and substantial damages paid. Now in normal circumstances Mish would be laying himself open to substantial damages to the liar because he allows me to write such on his site. However, there is no danger of a libel suite for anyone. The liar cannot go to court because the defendants would plead truth and would win. Now it becomes a real problem for the UK to have a liar representing us. The liar spent years in Brussels as the Daily Telegraph EU correspondent. There he did what he does best, he lied about the EU week in week out. He lied about the people he is “negotiating” with now. Nobody in the EU trusts him. The Conservative party, by electing him leader, made themselves the party of no deal. By the way Richard North, grand-daddy of the brexiteers, refers, on his website Eureferendum.com, to the liar as either the oaf, or the johnson. For those not in the know in English slang a johnson is a penis. If one of the founders of the brexit campaign are calling the liar a cock speaks volumes.
I don’t presume to speak on Mish’s behalf but I think except for a lunatic fringe on the Brexiteer side that no one saw a no deal Brexit as the desired end result. Rather its a means to an end. A launch pad from which to begin the negotiations which must inevitably take place between the EU and the UK after Brexit.
As to the EU I imagine that they must be getting tired with all sides of British politics, the remainers as much as the Brexiteers. At this point after 3+ years of back and forth torment maybe the EU just wants to bring this drama to an end and have some certainty for the future.
I doubt that the UK will get a hugely preferential deal for multiple reasons and I’d imagine that whatever deal eventuates (if one does ) that its going to be a compromise that will annoy the hard Brexiteers as much the remainers. Probably somewhere on the spectrum of a Canada type deal.
Barnier and other EU leaders have said (again and again and now again) that there is no reason to give Britain a good deal since they are leaving. The EU is justifiably worried about Northern Ireland, but that clusterfuck is England’s fault anyway. This entire farce is based on the notion (espoused ridiculously and with no basis in logic or fact by people like Mish) that the EU will be worse off without Britain than vice versa and will cry and whine and give the Brits whatever they want. Nonsense.
The EU does not want Britain to leave. But if Britain leaves, it will leave without any toys, presents, cookies or gum.
I have some understanding of Americans’s rabid pro-Brexit stance:Americans are ignorant morons who have no conception about what life is Europe is really like. I also understand ignorant Leavers who are too mis-informed to evaluate Remaining versus Leaving.
Answer this: How much does a war cost? And what is the longest period of peace in European history since Pax Romana?
“The Remainers are more interested in remaining in Parliament than they are remaining in the EU. To revoke Article 50 would cost at least half of them their seats.”
I believe Yancey is correct on that important point.
But there are 11 ex-Tories who are willing to fall on the axe or resign in disgust.
Let’s return to my observation 2 days ago. The number 1 concern of Swinson is not really to Remain, it is to do away with or win seats from labour and Remainer Tories.
This is what prevents Corbyn from becoming the temporary PM. Do the math:
The 21 Tory revolts will not vote for Corbyn, nor will DUP, nor will the Lib Dems.
If Corbyn will go along with someone else, then there can be a Temp PM, but only if this happens before Oct 19.
Why? Johnson can run out the clock. Inside the 14 day window it is too late to force him out. He can refuse to resign. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act does not require Johnson to stand down.
Of course, there can be emergency legislation to change the Fixed Term Parliaments act. But the closer we get to Oct 31, the more likely it is Johnson wiill not stand down.
Prior to Oct 18, Johnson has no legal choice. But this of course depends on Parliament to agree to a caretaker.
Yes, this is a mess. That’s why I am confident of little other than it will be the Binary Choice.
Referendum and Remain are not on the table. There are insufficient votes and a huge lack of time for a Referendum.
Once again, add it up and some sort of deal is possible if not probable, especially if the Deal Johnson comes up with stipulates no further extensions.
Johnson will not accept May’s deal nor will he ask for an extension. Parliament can perhaps force May’s deal but no one really wants that.
All that remains is :
How good of a deal can Johnson negotiate?
It has to be good enough for Johnson to accept, the EU to accept, and Parliament to accept.
This forces compromises. Everywhere.
Johnson’s mission is to kill the backstop and the ECJ – That is the start of a “fair” deal for everyone
Question, Mish: Why is Corbyn insistent that HE must be the caretaker PM? Is his hold on the Labour leadership so tenuous that allowing a different caretaker PM might cost him his position within Labour?
Mish you said “Prior to Oct 18, Johnson has no legal choice. But this of course depends on Parliament to agree to a caretaker.”
It is true though that this can only happen if the high court rules in favor of the remainers and against BJ. Otherwise the parliament remains in prorogue.
Forgive me if I sound naive being an American but, how is that even possible, the high court would have to shred it’s credibility to make such an obviously political ruling that runs counter to the law and the wishes of the queen who approved the prorogue. One of the things I keep saying is that the remainers were blindsided by the extended (though legal) prorogue and now scream that Johnson duped her majesty. As if she is so inexperienced and so poorly advised by her staff, so stupid to fall for an obvious political ploy that the remainers had completely overlooked themselves. Talk about projection, their failure to anticipate the prorogue as a tool in BJ’s tool kit that they were sent over the edge by it, the whole Brexit theater as boring as it has been for years became worth watching by their reaction alone to the suspension of parliament.
It is doubly dumbfounding that the photo attached to this entry in the Brexit chronicles features a few members of the public, remainers, with placards saying “this is not about Brexit but defending democracy,” and here I though that level of sophistication of the British public was higher than the course politics of America. Their utter lack of irony is stunning. If they wanted to “defend democracy” as their signs insist they would be on the side of Brexit because the real democracy in all this was the choice of the majority to invoke article 50, using a divided minority to talk that vote to death over the course of years so to block the original referendum is an attack on democracy.
This is a matryoshka doll of clusterfuckery that is damaging all sides. But it also reinforces the Euroskeptic view that the EU is an evil invention that cannot in any practical way be dealt with, it’s exploitation of the internal resistance to Brexit inside the UK is demonstrative of their bureaucratic bulwark, how do you beat something so enormous and slippery? Unaccountable?
And for more irony I predict that only two things can now happen, either the UK leaves and a year or so later everyone says “well, that was all a tempest in a teapot,” because things will go on as if Brexit never happened, or, all parties concerned will simply keep bickering till everyone has forgot why the people voted to leave in the first place.
There is no compromise to give the UK a good deal. The EU will never give the UK what you consider a good deal. Your delusion is saddening. Do you bother to listen to Continental politicians, read Continental papers or listen to Continental news? Or do you just read tweets from Johnson and Farage all day long?
What is the basis for your belief that the EU will cave in and give the Brits anything at all? If the Irish question is ignored (no backstop, no open borders) then the Brits will leave with nothing but a pointless sack of lies from their “friend” Donald.
By the way, Avid Remainer, call me “idiot” one more time and I will delete everything you have written.
An apology now would be nice.
I’ve never called you an idiot. I think of you as the very opposite. If I have offended you in any way of course I apologise.
Who did “idiot” refer to. It read (to me) Mish.
On ZH you would have been long gone, no questions asked.
Thanks!
The Brexit Secretary Barclay, he is the idiot, as they are all in the liars govt. because they don’t understand that the EU, for trade is effectively one country. I emphatically did not refer to you at all.
Thanks
I apologize to you for misunderstanding.
Beautiful ! Good on the both of yous !
A deal of some sort – good or bad is to be determined. There is one alternative – No Deal
Remain and Referendums are not really on the table – I never wavered on this
My expectations on No Deal have varied
No Deal is still very possible.
“The EU can of course say no – but they really want a deal.”
You are beginning to sound like Trump and China
Carlos, please be serious
The British population may be “tired of this”. I can understand that. On the other hand, all the direct political actors are doing just fine.
The purge of Tory rebels seemed to show that Johnson wants to break up his party voluntarily. That would be a true change. Now it seems less likely.
To me it all reinforces the Euroskeptic view of the theft of sovereignty and the effect that being in the EU is like sticking your digits into a Chinese finger puzzle, once they are in they cannot be removed, the puzzle just keeps getting tighter and with great pain if you try to withdraw.
I see it differently, I see an EU that wants to look large and in charge, aloof and oblivious to the political fray of internal politics inside a member country, as if it were not interfering with a child having a bit of a wobble, rolling it’s collective eyes at the tantrum of the UK and the sneaky games of it’s parliament. But the reality is the EU is suffering what amounts to night terrors over this behind closed doors. They know that if the UK does manage to find a way out others will follow, or at least renegotiate their continued union within the EU. That only the welfare beneficiaries like Greece and Ireland and Portugal will willingly stay on the current terms. They have to, they are economically blackmailed. Even though Ireland was forced into the EU by economic circumstances following the GFC.
And here we are on the cusp of another GFC, that is in no small part thanks to the dictatorship out of Frankfurt under Draghi to be made even worse by Legarde.
Most of you are somewhat aware of this, for those who are not please have a look at this:
Stock market’s eerie parallels to September 2007 should raise recession fears
Published: Sept 21, 2019
Since last year real GDP growth in the U.S. has been slowing. The chair of the Federal Reserve has been signaling that while growth is slowing, there is no recession risk and the Fed is forecasting continued positive growth. Warning signs in the economy, including an inverted yield curve, have been ignored and stock markets continued to make new highs in July. In August a correction took a place and subsequently a rally ensued into early September. On September 18 the Fed cut rates.
Quick, was that 2007 or 2019? Answer: Both. How this will play in the EU and the degree to which another GFC would void Brexit or contribute to the EU’s further breakup is still a question. I favor a common market and a Schengen type border agreement between European nations, but a confederacy with no central power that by default leaves the head of the ECB as the most powerful person in the EU is doomed, and it should be doomed. Just as with a rotting tooth causing so much pain it should be pulled before it abscesses and kills the patient.
If another crisis hits, the European elite will try to use it for further centralization. And I am afraid they might succeed.
My thoughts as well, it was how they managed to get a yes vote from Ireland on the second try, so this would be a convenient time for another crisis.
Sure, sure… As we learned from Trump and China, there is no deal, until there is a deal. This reminds of the Trump-China seesaw (well-documented here).
Nice piece Mike. But I have a question. The EU knows parliament is desperate to avoid no deal and dominated by remainers. So why should they negotiate at all? Is it more logical for the EU to say, no extension even if asked, either take Mays deal or no deal at all, and watch the remainers revoke article 50?
The Remainers are more interested in remaining in Parliament than they are remaining in the EU. To revoke Article 50 would cost at least half of them their seats.
Then the EU will get the deal they want. Because remainers won’t vote no deal and won’t revoke.
Mish pointed out that in fact remainers may have a very slight numerical superiority but that they are divided to the point that they are their own worst enemy. The people voted for leave and that is a historic fact that gives the conservatives all the credibility they need. The EU has to appear indifferent to the final outcome because they can’t afford to look like they torpedoed the will of the voters in the UK. That would bolster separatist sentiment right across the EU. But they also can’t afford to look like they are giving in to populist politics because that would allow member states to renegotiate terms of remaining themselves. The EU is actually the party in a no win situation that has to be handled very delicately. Not to even mention the geopolitics of the treats to NATO Trump makes, his Euroskeptic attitude, and the devious moves by Putin in regard to former Soviet block nations, some of whom are EU members.
The EU for now has no choice but to put up with the internal divisions in the UK. If they are more aggressive and there is a no deal Brexit the UK could itself break apart, or so the SNP would have it, then the EU has a larger and more pronounced problem than Brexit ever was, they have in the past promised breakaway provinces like Catalonia potential membership in the EU and to accept Scotland or Ulster or any part of the UK post Brexit would mean they have to apply the same standards to those, otherwise every county in the union would Balkanize to the point of dissolution.
I’m a bit clueless but to me it would seem to come down to whether or not the EU really wants the UK at this point and I sort of think they might not. So with that in mind I’d see it as a choice between revoking article 50 or the EU herding all British political parties into an agreement by the threat of a no deal exit.
The fact that the UK retained it’s own currency has always been a thorn in the ECB’s side, I agree with you except that they can’t be seen to be interfering too much for either side, as I say above it is no win for them because it would be seen as interfering in member states internal governance, or it would give rise to other states demanding renegotiation of their own status. Brexit is a crossroads for more than the UK, it is a crossroads for the EU.
No, they don’t have to vote between deal or no deal. They can revoke article 50 if the EU will not extend.
You believe they can do that? The fact that the referendum was an advisory vote and parliament could choose to defy it does not mean there would be no consequences for them in doing that. Internally the SNP and other remain regions in the UK are making threats to bust the union and remain in the EU, something the EU cannot afford, it has already told other potential breakaway entities like Catalonia that they would not be allowed to join if they separate from their motherlands. To make an exception for Scotland for example would be opening Pandora’s box to accept any breakaway county of any member. How would Italy feel if their own separatist Veneto region, or Lombardy/Milan both of which held independence votes, were encouraged by the admission of UK separatists? The only real factor that stopped Catalonia, or other separatists in the EU is the threat of being cut off the markets of their former EU member parents and the ECB teat.
If a last minute deal can indeed be struck, Brussels could then rule out a further extension. Parliament would then be forced to vote in favour to prevent a No Deal.
Agree, at that point it would put the onus upon the UK remainers because then a NO DEAL would be entirely their fault (just as the deadlock now is their fault for refusing to accept any deal that is not identical to remaining). But, what you and I and others here see clearly the UK left appears to be quite blind to. Besides, the EU position is quite clear, they will not allow any more extensions now unless they are promised a vote, either a general election that will change the political landscape inside the UK or a second referendum that will overturn the first. Though as Mish said a small technical extension could be granted in order to facilitate the implementation of a mutually agreed to Brexit deal.
Yet to come:
I doubt the 1. and 3. Number 2. is given is Germany and France agree. Wouldn’t necessarily bet on Macron.
Brussels is secretly wishing for a new election: It’s the EU way, to keep the people voting until they vote correctly, but if they don’t then the legislature needs to step up and be the adults who vote correctly. Mr. Johnson has indeed backed them into a corner, despite the treacherous crap-weasels who surround him in Westminster.
I think there is only one way for the EU and the British elite to claim victory in this crisis: if they can change the constitution and eventually the election system. They are interested in the deadlock until they can achieve this. After that point, any election will play into their hands, just like on the continent.
Look at Amber Rudd and her electoral reform… The demonic thing is that every stretch of the unwritten rules (on all sides) builds the momentum for this change.
I’d like to think David Cameron is talking his literal book, but his remarks that paint the Queen as a biased character seeming to be talking a bigger political book along the lines you suggest. Chip Chip Chip away at a Constutional order that took 700 years to build and has been unravelling over the past 170.
So now the vision is that the EU will break the deadlock. It would be very convenient indeed. I have my doubts.
You tend to ignore everything Brussels says until they say something that is vaguely promising for Johnson. It suddenly matters then. The Benn Act was supposed to be a “surrender document” that prevents any deal. Now it is the opposite. No Deal is supposed to be a bump on the road but the Germans somehow fear it like flaming hell. Farage rejects anything based on the WA but he is of no importance anymore.
Too many steps are missing, to me at least.
I do so agree. Especially with the selective quotes. Mish could have quoted other sources which stated that Barnier and Junker spoke very slowly to the liar trying to explain how the EU worked and that finally ” the penny dropped.” We had the spectacle of the Brexit Secretary Barclay in Madrid saying that the EU should take” risks ” with the Irish border and sort everything out during the transition period. The idiot does not understand that the EU has one external border ie enter the Republic you enter Slovakia. Worse he said that all these problems could be sorted out ” during the transition period “. The idiot even now does not understand that the transition period is dependent on accepting May’s deal. No deal no transition. It is beyond stupid, but then I’ve never understood why Mish attributes god like abilities first to May and now the liar when both are still buffoons.
Either way, Deal, No Deal, Brexit, Remain…. The EU has it’s hands tied. If they defeat Brexit and force the UK to remain a member state there will be separatist outrage hell to pay all over the EU. It will justify people like LePen and the AfD. But, if they make a deal that both the UK conservatives and the EU/ECB bureaucracy can live with they will have every podunque county and province in the EU demanding to join as new states independent of their motherlands. And other members demanding to renegotiate the terms of their own remaining. I see this as harder for the EU than for the UK. And, it would be unwise to think that steamrollering the will of Britons in their Leave vote would have no consequences, it would be chaos in British politics if Brexit does not happen in five weeks time. Well, I mean a lot worse than it is even now. The recriminations and upset would probably mean the end of the UK. Eventually anyway.