Brexit discussion thread IV

BonnieSituation

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think it was the belief that on the EU side that if the only acceptable position on the border was one that was completely frictionless and with no physical infrastructure, that this would force the UK into staying in the customs union.

Of course it could still be the case that the UK does cave, but that seems less and less likely. If, as seems probable now, the UK crashes out, this represents a failure not only on the UK but also on the EU side - a miscalculation.

I understand the reluctance of the EU not give full access to the single market while allowing the UK the ability to do trade deals outside. This would undermine the integrity of the single market with other countries demanding the same rights.

However it has to be remembered that the UK are within their rights to leave the EU, single market and customs union, and they have been fairly clear that that is what they intended to do from fairly early on.

But the EU position seems to be that anything short of staying in the customs union is unacceptable. It is either stay in the customs union or crash out. There is no middle road. The border issue was a good way of creating this dilemma. To me this is unreasonable except as a means of taking it out on a country for having the audacity to leave the EU's institutions. I would suggest that the only reason the EU are taking this approach is because the fallout will be concentrated in a small peripheral country of little value to the EU.

If there was a middle ground then why would anyone want to be in the EU?

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

It's shifted a bit recently, but for a long time the border issue was the main hold up. Given that we (Ireland) were opposed to deals that involved any sort of border with the North, it is ironic that we may be the ones building the hard border with the North.

Let me guess.. The UK saying no PM could ever agree to a border in the Irish Sea makes perfect sense, but likewise from the Irish government saying we couldn't sign off on a border with the North is nonsense?

Nothing ironic at all about putting up borders that respect WTO rules. Ireland is dealing with reality. Before long, we'll be hearing "Screw the WTO." in Parliament and people like yourself will say Ireland and the EU are somehow making the UK go full retard as punishment.

How exactly will you manage to pin this incompetency on foreigners? Poison in the water supply? Bribery? Prostitutes? Mind control devices? Anything but let the UK take full responsibility?

"In response to my good honorable friend, no, it's clear that voting to leave the EU meant to leave all institutions. For that reason, I believe no border and leaving the WTO is in line with the people's wishes."

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

Let me guess.. The UK saying no PM could ever agree to a border in the Irish Sea makes perfect sense, but likewise from the Irish government saying we couldn't sign off on a border with the North is nonsense?

Except that when Ireland says we won't sign off on a border that might be less than perfect from our point of view, we end up with something much worse (again from our point of view).

Our position only makes sense if we believe that the UK will cave and retain membership of the customs union. Otherwise the strategy backfires and when it backfires it backfires on us, not most of the other EU member states. Hence the EU can take a strong line.

Bit cynical

BonnieSituation wrote: »

If there was a middle ground then why would anyone want to be in the EU?

OK, so there's no middle ground. Then what is the purpose of the two year negotiating period that the UK are obliged to follow? Is it just a PR exercise?

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

Except that when Ireland says we won't sign off on a border that might be less than perfect from our point of view, we end up with something much worse (again from our point of view).

Our position only makes sense if we believe that the UK will cave and retain membership of the customs union. Otherwise the strategy backfires and when it backfires it backfires on us, not most of the other EU member states. Hence the EU can take a strong line.

"Less than perfect" really means "Less than perfect and permanent".

What less than perfect solutions should we consider that works with the UK's red lines and doesn't undermine the EU?

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

"Less than perfect" really means "Less than perfect and permanent".

However in the event of a crash out, if we're honest, we have to admit that we have no idea how long the much harder border will last. We might hope that UK will opt to rejoin the customs union but we have hoped for a lot of things that did not happen.

And remember that the border is mainly an issue on the island of Ireland. Once the hard border is in place, in a very short space of time it will stop being a news item for most of the UK.

What less than perfect solutions should we consider that works with the UK's red lines and doesn't undermine the EU?

Well, I think there should have been more of an acceptance of the UKs position and more emphasis on the future trade relationship. We got sidetracked and now it looks likely we will pay for it both in terms of an economic hit as well as a harder border than we would have liked.

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well, I think there should have been more of an acceptance of the UKs position and more emphasis on the future trade relationship. We got sidetracked and now it looks likely we will pay for it both in terms of an economic hit as well as a harder border than we would have liked.

I asked for solutions. You have the entire hypothetical world to work with here.. Point out some solutions that could work with the UK's red lines and the EU's four freedoms etc.

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

I asked for solutions. You have the entire hypothetical world to work with here.. Point out some solutions that could work with the UK's red lines and the EU's four freedoms etc.

It is the purpose of negotiations to find that common ground. If we accept the UKs right to leave the customs union and we also accept the EU's four freedoms then talks must shift to trade. If a good trade relationship can be found with the UK, given that they their regulations, as EU members, currently align with the EU, then this minimizes both the economic hit to Ireland as well lessening the impact of the border.

What we have been doing, on the other hand, is trying to reverse the UK's decisions. If it succeeds, all well and good. If it fails, however, we have to accept some of the responsibility for its failure. By we, here, I mean Ireland.

Jim2007

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is the purpose of negotiations to find that common ground.

No it is about getting the best deal for your side. You don't negotiate with major trading blocks, you turn up, get to see what is on offer and decide if you want it or not. And if you are look you might get a few face saving concessions to make it more acceptable at home. This something the UK is going to have to get used to as it goes it alone.

Bit cynical wrote: »

What we have been doing, on the other hand, is trying to reverse the UK's decisions.

No, what we have been doing is taking them at their word, sticking to our principles and holding them to account for their actions.

Jim2007

Bit cynical wrote: »

OK, so there's no middle ground. Then what is the purpose of the two year negotiating period that the UK are obliged to follow? Is it just a PR exercise?

The UK is not obliged to follow it, they can walk away any time the choose. The EU on the other hand must stick to the treaty terms. As for a purpose, the UK seems to think it is about turning and demanding stuff that is not available to them as a third country. A PR exercise to show their voters the are trying one assumes.

Jim2007

Bit cynical wrote: »

But the EU position seems to be that anything short of staying in the customs union is unacceptable.

Nonsense. There is no reason why the EU should have to compromise on their principles, an Canada style trade deal has been on offer since the outset, but the UK have rejected it. You need to update your filter and let reality get in.

Nody

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is the purpose of negotiations to find that common ground. If we accept the UKs right to leave the customs union and we also accept the EU's four freedoms then talks must shift to trade. If a good trade relationship can be found with the UK, given that they their regulations, as EU members, currently align with the EU, then this minimizes both the economic hit to Ireland as well lessening the impact of the border.

What we have been doing, on the other hand, is trying to reverse the UK's decisions. If it succeeds, all well and good. If it fails, however, we have to accept some of the responsibility for its failure. By we, here, I mean Ireland.

Do we really need to bring up the power point presentation again over what EU has offered? Based on UK's Red Lines which you say has to be respected EU offered a Canada+ FTA with zero tariffs on everything. UK outright rejected that as not being enough as it did not full free access to among other things service (not part of FTAs in general), access for them to all various EU institutions (which are limited to you guessed it, EU members only), access to EURPOL as a EU member, no legal oversight as all other EU countries has from ECJ etc.

Hence EU has offered UK exactly what they could offer that you say they should offer and UK rejected it stating they want all the benefits of being in EU while being allowed to not be in EU and anything less is bullying. Hence at this stage it's not a case of EU "offering more" or "demanding they are in the single market"; it's EU simply reiterating that they have red lines as well and UK has to choose which deal they want. UK are not going to get a deal with all the benefits crossing all EU red lines simply because they stomp their foot and scream bully. They have two options now on the table based on their own red lines; a full zero tariff FTA or WTO terms and UK is pushing for WTO terms via hard crash out. That is a UK choice on how the post brexit trading relationship is going to look like; not EU's decision.

devnull

Boris to make a formal statement to the house after PMQs this lunchtime.

Expected to be explosive and a challenge to the leadership of May.

Anything to avoid actually dealing with the issues at hand.

judeboy101

devnull wrote: »

Boris to make a formal statement to the house after PMQs this lunchtime.

Expected to be explosive and a challenge to the leadership of May.

Anything to avoid actually dealing with the issues at hand.

It'll be toothless, he's no Geoffrey Howe.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=geoffrey+howe&view=detail&mid=A973005BC03EBDEBD664A973005BC03EBDEBD664&FORM=VRRTAP

For the lazy, the zinger is 16:37 onwards.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think it was the belief that on the EU side that if the only acceptable position on the border was one that was completely frictionless and with no physical infrastructure, that this would force the UK into staying in the customs union.

Of course it could still be the case that the UK does cave, but that seems less and less likely. If, as seems probable now, the UK crashes out, this represents a failure not only on the UK but also on the EU side - a miscalculation.

I understand the reluctance of the EU not give full access to the single market while allowing the UK the ability to do trade deals outside. This would undermine the integrity of the single market with other countries demanding the same rights.

However it has to be remembered that the UK are within their rights to leave the EU, single market and customs union, and they have been fairly clear that that is what they intended to do from fairly early on.

But the EU position seems to be that anything short of staying in the customs union is unacceptable. It is either stay in the customs union or crash out. There is no middle road. The border issue was a good way of creating this dilemma. To me this is unreasonable except as a means of taking it out on a country for having the audacity to leave the EU's institutions. I would suggest that the only reason the EU are taking this approach is because the fallout will be concentrated in a small peripheral country of little value to the EU.

I think you have been reading too many UK tabloids. The EU has not taken the position that it is either stay in the CU or crash out. The EU has a range of potential deals on offer, a Norway+ style deal, A Ukraine style deal, or a Ceanada style deal to name some of the main contenders. These deals require varing levels of compromise from the UK, the UK has ruled out all of these potential deals with its red lines.

The UK has the right to leave the EU, and to rule out all possible deals with the EU, but it is not the EU's fault if doing so harms the UK significantly.

VinLieger

judeboy101 wrote: »

It'll be toothless, he's no Geoffrey Howe.

Hes gonna have practiced all of 15 minutes in the mirror, expect stumbling, spluttering and repetition as he tries to remember what line hes reading from.


Of course in his eyes he will be on par with churchill

Enzokk

Trasna1 wrote: »

I have to say Katia Adler's reporting from Brussels has been poor. She clearly constrained by the editorial policy of BBC news and doesn't enjoy the kind of access Tony Connolly has.

Did she even mention that the EU are ramping up the no deal preparation in the last few days?

I stopped listening to the Brexitcast podcast a while ago, anyone know if they have changed their view that a deal will work because the EU always moves at the last moment?

J Mysterio wrote: »

Fair play to Soubry here, passionately speaking out against the Brexiteers (video in article):

Tory MPs 'privately say loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs worth it for Brexit', Anna Soubry tells Parliament

'Nobody voted Leave on the basis that somebody with a gold-plated pension and inherited wealth will take their job away from them'

At least she is saying it. There are absolutely crickets from Labour, other than they will negotiate a deal with the EU that has it all. It was also weird seeing Labour supporters trying to remind people that she is a Tory when people applauded her performance on Monday night. Instead of focusing on those 4 Labour MP's that cost them the vote they were talking about her voting record and how she always votes for the party, when she voted against her party.

Yesterday all of a sudden there are calls for those Labour MP's to be deselected after they cost the party a possible general election. Maybe if they woke up on Monday and put the pressure on them instead of focusing on someone supporting their own party position it may have made a difference.

Leroy42

So Bit Cynical, on which of the 4 pillars should the EU give in to reach a deal, and what implications do you think that will have in terms of competition between the UK and the EU?

Enzokk

The links between the Russians and Brexit seems to grow. I think at the end of the day this will be revealed as one big operation by Russia to destabilize the EU and the USA. At the front and center of Brexit?

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1019466439516934144

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1019468422768414720

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1019470371895103488

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1019479054926442496

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1019484836363472896

But still, surely we would not have politicians voting for less money and less jobs for their voters, would we?

https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1019080862741204993

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

The links between the Russians and Brexit seems to grow. I think at the end of the day this will be revealed as one big operation by Russia to destabilize the EU and the USA. At the front and center of Brexit?

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1019466439516934144

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1019468422768414720

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1019470371895103488

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1019479054926442496

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1019484836363472896

But still, surely we would not have politicians voting for less money and less jobs for their voters, would we?

https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1019080862741204993

No deal Brexit: 2,800,000 fewer jobs £158bn loss per year
Trade agreement Brexit (outside the single market): 1,750,000 fewer jobs £99bn loss per year
Soft Brexit (EEA & single market): 700,000 fewer jobs £39bn loss per year Remain in EU: No impact on jobs No £ loss per year

In the interests of balanced reporting, I have no doubt that these facts will be highlighted for Telegraph/Sun/Mail/Express readers. No doubt at all.

devnull

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No deal Brexit: 2,800,000 fewer jobs £158bn loss per year
Trade agreement Brexit (outside the single market): 1,750,000 fewer jobs £99bn loss per year
Soft Brexit (EEA & single market): 700,000 fewer jobs £39bn loss per year Remain in EU: No impact on jobs No £ loss per year

In the interests of balanced reporting, I have no doubt that these facts will be highlighted for Telegraph/Sun/Mail/Express readers. No doubt at all.

Here, don't allow facts to get in the way of a good session of scapegoating and deflecting the blame to the EU for all of the UK's domestic problems.

Leroy42

I just think that people simply cannot get their head around what an impact like 2.8m jobs lost would be like. Even though they are still feeling the effects (as we all are) of the crash from 2008. surely things can't be as bad as that.

Yeah, they'll be some adjusting, but I still need my marmalade, and the Ex pats still want the Sun newspaper so things will simply continue on. The Eu is the normal, the default. A very significant amount of people don't recall anything else and so to try to comprehend that things will be difficult is very difficult, particularly when a lot of people don't understand what is actually involved in CU or SM and therefore cannot really understand why things would be any different.

Things are not the way they are because of the EU, its just the way things are. Simply replace EU with US and things will be the same.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

I just think that people simply cannot get their head around what an impact like 2.8m jobs lost would be like. Even though they are still feeling the effects (as we all are) of the crash from 2008. surely things can't be as bad as that.

Yeah, they'll be some adjusting, but I still need my marmalade, and the Ex pats still want the Sun newspaper so things will simply continue on. The Eu is the normal, the default. A very significant amount of people don't recall anything else and so to try to comprehend that things will be difficult is very difficult, particularly when a lot of people don't understand what is actually involved in CU or SM and therefore cannot really understand why things would be any different.

Things are not the way they are because of the EU, its just the way things are. Simply replace EU with US and things will be the same.

I disagree. Things would be exponentially worse.

VinLieger

Leroy42 wrote: »

Things are not the way they are because of the EU, its just the way things are. Simply replace EU with US and things will be the same.

Except their marmalade will be made for half the price, using god knows what ingredients and still claim its from britain but actually be from the US

kunst nugget

Leroy42 wrote: »

I just think that people simply cannot get their head around what an impact like 2.8m jobs lost would be like. Even though they are still feeling the effects (as we all are) of the crash from 2008. surely things can't be as bad as that.

I think it's more of the Michael Gove 'Britons have had enough of experts' mindset. They don't really care about doomsday predictions anymore and have stopped listening.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I disagree. Things would be exponentially worse.

You mistook my post, for which I accept is my fault.

I was trying to articulate why people seemingly do not seem to comprehend that dangers facing them. They cannot understand it.

I recall a meeting with my then boss years ago, where I was saying that people were not taking the threats the company faced seriously. I said that people can't see the train coming towards them.

He replied that of course they can't see the train, they don't even know they are standing on train tracks. I think this is the same.

judeboy101

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Bit Cynical, on which of the 4 pillars should the EU give in to reach a deal, and what implications do you think that will have in terms of competition between the UK and the EU?

That's like picking which of your 4 kids would you sacrifice just so one of your friends stays at the party. So long as the brits have the ability to devalue and so long as their army/navy/air force is the best by a long shot in Europe, they will do grand in the medium to long term.

Nody

judeboy101 wrote: »

That's like picking which of your 4 kids would you sacrifice just so one of your friends stays at the party. So long as the brits have the ability to devalue and so long as their army/navy/air force is the best by a long shot in Europe, they will do grand in the medium to long term.

You are aware that France actually has a better military force including nukes they can fire without US permission, right?

Professor Moriarty

judeboy101 wrote: »

That's like picking which of your 4 kids would you sacrifice just so one of your friends stays at the party. So long as the brits have the ability to devalue and so long as their army/navy/air force is the best by a long shot in Europe, they will do grand in the medium to long term.

Could you define 'grand', 'medium' and 'long term'?

VinLieger

judeboy101 wrote: »

That's like picking which of your 4 kids would you sacrifice just so one of your friends stays at the party. So long as the brits have the ability to devalue and so long as their army/navy/air force is the best by a long shot in Europe, they will do grand in the medium to long term.

Their navy is in serious need of investment according to their Admiralty but the tories are actually cutting spending, the days of the two power standard are long gone.

Also what does their military prowess have to do with their economic viability or ability to negotiate trade deals? Are you suggesting they threaten military action if they arent given good trade deals??

judeboy101

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Could you define 'grand', 'medium' and 'long term'?

Grand=same or better than they currently are
Medium=5-10yrs
Long=10+

Leonard Hofstadter

The pound has lost 1.3 cent against the euro in the last 48 hours, hardly a sign of confidence about the current prospects for the UK (inflation was also below expectations this morning, and it lost half a cent alone today). That's a fairly large loss in such a short space of time.

About this time on Monday morning 1 GBP was worth about 1.134 EUR, right now 1 GBP is worth 1.121 EUR.

Bear in mind that 1 GBP was worth about 1.32 EUR the day before Brexit, and in November 2015 1 GBP got to 1.44072 EUR.

So all in all, the pound has lost nearly 30 cent against the euro over the past 2-3 years, but even compared to the day before Brexit, it's still lost almost 20 cent.

Back in the mid 2000s Sterling regularly went over €1.50, it's still not as low as the near parity it reached in 2009, but the trend could hardly be described as positive.

seamus

Leroy42 wrote: »

I just think that people simply cannot get their head around what an impact like 2.8m jobs lost would be like. Even though they are still feeling the effects (as we all are) of the crash from 2008. surely things can't be as bad as that.

It's also worth pointing out that 2.8m lost jobs is 8.2% of the employed workforce.

This would put the UK unemployment rate at 12.5%.

For comparison, the worst unemployment rate in the UK in recent history was 11.9% in early 1984.

Before that, the last time it was above 12% was during the Great Depression and through WW2 (though those figures are less reliable).

For the UK, that's an insane loss of jobs. Which obviously will mostly hit the areas which voted Leave.

VinLieger

judeboy101 wrote: »

Grand=same or better than they currently are
Medium=5-10yrs
Long=10+

So you disagree with the UK's own department on exiting the EU's analysis?

After 5 years where they will have lost potentially upwards of 3 million jobs and a yearly minus of 158 billion they will be in the same state or possibly better than they currently are......

Do you have any factual basis for this or is it just a completely unfounded opinion?

kowtow

An interesting reflection on the bifurcation of standards between the UK and Ireland which will likely happen post-Brexit, indeed is already happening today. Whilst the UK may be pressurized to lower standards in future, it would be wrong of us to assume that the traffic there is all in one direction.

Post Brexit The UK is likely - subject to the white paper - to finally achieve it's intention of making the live export of animals for slaughter overseas illegal. This has been on the cards for a good few years now, but British courts have been unable to ban the practice as it is an EU competence.

Whereas in Ireland - where the pressure to find markets for our animals was always acute, and is only becoming greater with Brexit - we loaded a thousand or more bulls on the hoof yesterday for the voyage to Libya. There are many here, including many of us in the farming community, who regard this as a very regrettable turn of events.

Leroy42

But haven't the Uk already said that they have no intention of changing regulations, that is the whole basis for the common rule book.

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

But haven't the Uk already said that they have no intention of changing regulations, that is the whole basis for the common rule book.

Until the realise they really cant do any kind of usefull trade deal unless they change their regs, and the UK economy is suffering significantly without those trade deals.

devnull

May has just been asked by one of her backbenchers now at which point did Brexit mean Remain.

Could be quite a sign of things to come in PMQs.

Corbyn's first question was about vote leave and May hit back at him for attacking members of the house and should withdraw accusations about those who are involved in Vote Leave.

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law according to TM, who asked him to withdraw his remarks.

lawred2

judeboy101 wrote: »

That's like picking which of your 4 kids would you sacrifice just so one of your friends stays at the party. So long as the brits have the ability to devalue and so long as their army/navy/air force is the best by a long shot in Europe, they will do grand in the medium to long term.

That's not always a good thing... Never mind the impacts on savings, pensions, wealth, capital flight etc etc

But on an every day basis - everything gets more expensive. The UK's balance of trade is negative.

I'd add that it's very Little Englander to predicate their nation's future well-being on it's military might.

lawred2

devnull wrote: »

May has just been asked by one of her backbenchers now at which point did Brexit mean Remain.

Could be quite a sign of things to come in PMQs.

Corbyn's first question was about vote leave and May hit back at him for attacking members of the house and should withdraw accusations about those who are involved in Vote Leave.

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law according to TM, who asked him to withdraw his remarks.

Which bit of this amended white paper points to Remain?

An Ciarraioch

Oh dear, Paisley's trip to Sri Lanka could mean a by-election in North Antrim!

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-44869627

EdgeCase

May's just reiterating her opposition to the UK being part of the customs union.

An Ciarraioch

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1019370128830582784

devnull

EdgeCase wrote: »

May's just reiterating her opposition to the UK being part of the customs union.

It's a bit strange what is going on, it's like Jacob Rees-Mogg is talking in Theresa May's voice.

TM avoiding questions on the Brexit Secretary beliefs about human rights and social justice, twice now gone completely off-topic.

lawred2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1019370128830582784

quite the mood swing

will need a few more of these and maybe we might see some sense of urgency or coming to senses from Labour and moderate Conservatives..

Hard to argue that this is the will of the nation if repeated polls show otherwise.

Water John

How many times can Ian Paisley Jnr be bought?

EdgeCase

kowtow wrote: »

An interesting reflection on the bifurcation of standards between the UK and Ireland which will likely happen post-Brexit, indeed is already happening today. Whilst the UK may be pressurized to lower standards in future, it would be wrong of us to assume that the traffic there is all in one direction.

Post Brexit The UK is likely - subject to the white paper - to finally achieve it's intention of making the live export of animals for slaughter overseas illegal. This has been on the cards for a good few years now, but British courts have been unable to ban the practice as it is an EU competence.

Whereas in Ireland - where the pressure to find markets for our animals was always acute, and is only becoming greater with Brexit - we loaded a thousand or more bulls on the hoof yesterday for the voyage to Libya. There are many here, including many of us in the farming community, who regard this as a very regrettable turn of events.

Actually, on some of those animal rights issues, the UK has been very strong at EU level and could have influenced change on a pan EU basis.

Irish farmers have huge lobbying power here because of a much less urbanised population than the UK and we have been relatively foot dragging on animal rights relative to Britian.

That's one UK voice I'll be sad to see lost at EU level.

Got I hate listening to May. She just passes off every bump as if it were all part of the plan.

EdgeCase

Deleted User wrote: »

Got I hate listening to May. She just passes off every bump as if it were all part of the plan.

She basically just spins, deflects, spins, attacks Corbyn, attacks Labour for alleged antisemitism, mentions "the will of the people" several times ... rinse and repeat.

It’s not that different from Trump’s approach, just colder and spoken with a more polished accent.

Leroy42

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1019370128830582784

Stats not my thing, but am I right in my reading that basically all those that would like a leave with a deal, if no deal is available would opt for no deal leaving?

A deal looks increasingly unlikely and as such the UK is still pretty much split down the middle on which way to go.

But nearly half are ok with crashing out