Brexit Discussion Thread VI

ancapailldorcha

cryptocurrency wrote: »

There are too many reasons for the UK to leave the EU that are vital but are extremely unpalatable to be discussed with the snowflake masses, especially during vegan January.

If you post like this again, you will be banned from this forum. No more trolling please.

Anthracite

cryptocurrency wrote: »

There are weapons and there are weapons and there are services and there are financial products. There are even financial weapon products.

It is all very complex. Even google doesn't have the details handy.

The likelihood that, should these imaginary 'financial product weapons' exist, the UK would shoot themselves in the foot with them as they have with Brexit. The country is in an absolute shambles, with dreadful political leadership and a populace so riven with division that they are likely to crash out in a spectacular cock-up that will set them back 40 years.

Leroy42

Cyrpto, you obviously dislike the EU and see the UK leaving as the right move.

But given the make up of the world can you not see that consolidation is the way to go? The USA and China are the two big centres and the EU is an attempt to leverage the power of the combined to level the playing field.

Even if you are right in your position that the EU will collapse, I fail to see how the UK leaving is of an advantage, if anything it will speed up the break up. But what then? It is clear that the UK cannot go it alone. They could not get any say in the EU, have seemingly been bullied upon trying to leave and so on what basis do you think that them going it alone is beneficial?

Even if we accept the premise of your position, that the EU is bad, what is the alternative that you propose? It cannot be the the UK go it alone, even the UK agree that the EEC was a good idea. What they do not like is the continued integration. But they seem to have taken the nuclear option of going backwards in order to make a point.

But lets go along with the premise that the EU will break up. What advantage does leaving now give the UK? And why, if the EU is about to break up, why are countries such as Japan and Canada agreeing to new trade deals with them?

Anthracite

cryptocurrency wrote: »

If the UK went for a hard brexit from day one it would have been seen as bullish, unfriendly, uncooperative and not good optics domestically. If TM manages to drag this out but stumbling and stuttering, have the whole EU chuckling smugly till February and an "accidental no deal" happens then she will go down as a political hero in the UK.

There are too many reasons for the UK to leave the EU that are vital but are extremely unpalatable to be discussed with the snowflake masses, especially during vegan January.

Global politics is a very dark art.

Staying the EU makes no sense from a national security standpoint and if anyone is honest with themselves they would stop the ridiculous idea the UK can still remain. The climb down would mean the nation is dead and the support of the majority of its people gone with it. That is national suicide. An Indian/Pakistani standoff is far preferable to the utter humiliation of cowing to the EU now.
The thought of remaining in the EU now after the last few years make many sick to their stomach.

Again, a very interesting example of an absolutely fact-free post. If you have an argument, we are all on tenterhooks waiting to hear it.

LuckyLloyd

EdgeCase wrote: »

The problem is that they don’t listen to expert opinions that contradict dogma. She’s basically just going to get ignored, just as everyone else who has pointed these facts out ad nausium over the past couple of years.

I would be very surprised if there’s a sudden shift to expert opinion being given the hearing it ought to be getting.

Maybe there will be more realistic discussion but given the track record to date, I don’t hold out much hope.

I think the statements that are going to be wild in relation to the legal parameters are the ‘we can extend article 50 for a year to achieve managed No Deal’ or ‘we can revoke Article 50 and restart the negotiatons’ type ideas. We had some opinion pieces to such effect in the Telegraph during December.

The legal perameters are pretty straightforward and easy to understand here, but that never stopped a Brexiteer before!

FrancieBrady

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Scotland had their referendum and they will have to wait a bit longer before another. It was well beaten and would still lose.

Ireland can't afford the north, it would bankrupt them and most are not into it anyway.

Once Europe starts to properly melt most will count their blessings the UK left.

Aren't you the poster who claimed Corbyn would be PM? Never going to happen. He is a national security threat. You need to learn a few things first.

Corbyn will never happen, its just silly talk. He is a useful idiot in opposition for now as he is no threat to power.

Are you English, because that is a particularly arrogant English view in my opinion.
There are any number of scenarios that will bring about another Scottish Indy Ref and a first Border poll.

The fact is for above English that we are perilously close to both.
It wasn't me who claimed Corbyn would be PM (although I don't see why that couldn't happen) but it was me that said 2 years ago and since, that we are really watching a 20 year break up of the UK.
History will look back and see these shennanigans as one of the symptoms of that, as was the first Scottish Ref.

fash

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Ladbrokes has May replaced before end of March as 1/2 which is great news if they are on the money. Boris to the rescue with Mogg moved into cabinet. I personally would prefer Davis or Rabb which would be amazing comebacks after the charade they went through as brexit secretary(totally ignored by Brussels because they were secretly dealing with Oillie Robbins)..imagine Juncker and COs face when they suddenly have to deal with the lads they were giving the run around too and they are hard brexiteers. Could be good times.

I am still trying to work out to what extent you've drunk the Brexit cool-aid: do you agree that (whatever you think of their politics), Raab and Davis are both quite obviously dim? And that Davis is also quite obviously exceptionally lazy?
Do you also accept that Johnson (aside from the fact that he seems to have chosen his Brexit position based solely on perceived tactical advantage) is simply a "white elephant" - being charitable "big idea but no details" - type of person ( e g. see everything he did as London mayor, Boris buses, the garden bridge, airport in the Thames etc.).

In which case, how could you think that they would achieve anything?

ambro25

I think it's useful to contrast cryptocurrency's parroted dogma, with a bit of real-world reality, to demonstrate the extent of the disconnect (and the scale of the disillusionment to inevitably follow) here.

Take the old "services and financial services" comment, basically the EU(27) needs the City because reasons, not in so many words.

This is the reality as of 20 December 2018, which I can verify independently on the ground (and have done in t'Brexit threads for the last 10 months since Brexoding here).

No experts, opinions, unicorns, Project this-or-the other required or involved whatsoever: just looking at new (UK) companies' name plates popping up in building entrances. Which media like Bloomberg and others reports upon, because it's happening, and it's causally linked to Brexit so it's newsworthy.

And it's the exact same story for the insurance sector (much under-represented in reports and articles about Brexoding City financial services, but no less important in value, revenues, tax-take and jobs). I'm not bothering with extending to Frankfurt, to Paris or to Dublin: last I heard, all of them are, each, getting more relocated financial service activity than Luxembourg. Barcelona isn't trailing by far.

Nothing unknown to regular readers and contributors, of course. But whenever idealists like cryptocurrency surface, I genuinely believe that the most appropriate (and polite) approach after a first dogmatic post should be just that: we've all heard the dogma, now this is the reality, how do you propose to deal with it practically?

Any more dogma, dog whistling or whattaboutery in reply, rather than a post genuinely engaging the debate with arguments on the merits, and it's straight to the ignore list. Save server storage and bandwidth, don't engage with types impervious to fact-based reasoning.

Hermy

cryptocurrency wrote: »

There are too many reasons for the UK to leave the EU that are vital but are extremely unpalatable to be discussed with the snowflake masses, especially during vegan January.

Never mind how unpalatable you think they might be, if you know of convincing reasons why the UK should leave the EU, for the benefit of the debate please post them!

First Up

Hermy wrote:

Never mind how unpalatable you think they might be, if you know of convincing reasons why the UK should leave the EU, for the benefit of the debate please post them!

Most of the pro Brexit contributions here are the intellectual equivalent of ringing someone's doorbell and running away.

Don't answer.

CelticRambler

cryptocurrency wrote: »

If TM manages to drag this out but stumbling and stuttering, have the whole EU chuckling smugly till February and an "accidental no deal" happens then she will go down as a political hero in the UK.

How do you reconcile the notion that the EU is "chuckling smugly" when its senior politicians have said (on and off the record) that the Brexit and the current WA is a lose-lose state of affairs? Hardly the kind of thing to chuckle over.

And is there any point in using the adjective "accidental" now, when the WA is on the table waiting to be approved by the UK; and expecting it to be defeated, the EU is upactivating previously-made preparations for a no-deal Brexit?

Your posts echo so many of Theresa May's speeches (including various public and parliamentary addresses as recently as December) where she talks about vague ambitions for the future. Brexit, for the Brexiteers, seems to be something of a pleasant dream, in which they imagine themselves sleepwalking naked around the village green, but from which they expect to wake up very soon, to find they're safe in their comfy bed, still in their pyjamas. Meanwhile, the EU is watching a sad old lady wandering aimlessly and undressed around the high street, telling people that she used to be a famous actress once, and wondering what to do with her ...

Thomas_IV

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Scotland had their referendum and they will have to wait a bit longer before another. It was well beaten and would still lose.

Ireland can't afford the north, it would bankrupt them and most are not into it anyway.

Once Europe starts to properly melt most will count their blessings the UK left.

Aren't you the poster who claimed Corbyn would be PM? Never going to happen. He is a national security threat. You need to learn a few things first.

Corbyn will never happen, its just silly talk. He is a useful idiot in opposition for now as he is no threat to power.

Sounds like some American Trumpist is talking about Brexit to me.

Corbyn might be many things, but the biggest threat to the UK is her present PM and her government.

LuckyLloyd

David Davies with the kind of high level nonsense that will be lapped up and lauded by the Brexit base in today's Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/02/preparing-no-deal-properly-will-get-good-brexit-democracy-demands/

We are told that another decisive moment looms, in the form of the forthcoming Commons vote on the proposed Withdrawal Agreement. Of course, we have been here before.

We have seen many supposedly decisive moments since the 2016 referendum: triggering Article 50, passing the EU Withdrawal Act, the December meaningful vote that never was, to name but a few.

Before we whip ourselves into another frenzy, perhaps it is time to take stock? I have always said that the EU would push and push until finally we reach a resolution at the eleventh hour. Recent events only reinforce my analysis. Indeed, anybody who really understands how negotiations work understands that time is our friend.

We know that the EU is worried about the loss of the £39 billion “divorce” payment if there is no deal. EU Budget Commissioner Gunther Oettinger has said that the remaining 27 member states will face a hefty bill if the UK does not pay. We also know that the UK’s no deal preparations are well advanced. A senior civil servant, writing in The Telegraph last week, said the Government is failing to be frank about the degree of preparation.

So this is the moment to be hard-nosed about these issues. The more we prepare to leave the EU without a deal, the more likely a good deal becomes.

But getting there means ignoring the distractions, such as the briefings that Continuity Remain elements will seek to extend Article 50 or force a second referendum. It is not going to happen without a General Election.

Instead, Tory MPs must remain committed to delivering the referendum result, as repeated in our manifesto, which pledged to leave the Customs Union and the Single Market and which said that no deal is better than a bad deal. To do otherwise would frankly throw our democracy’s credibility into chaos.

And let’s be clear: the Withdrawal Agreement does not respect the referendum result. That is why the meaningful vote had to be delayed and one wonders if even the January vote will go ahead. Attempts to frighten MPs into supporting it are unlikely to work, because voting down this substandard deal will not result in no Brexit. How could it? There is no mechanism for that to happen. The UK will leave the EU on 29 March. That is nailed down in primary legislation and international treaty commitments. There is no wriggle room.


Well informed colleagues also know there is an alternative. Both Donald Tusk and Michel Barnier have offered the UK a Canada+++ option. A Northern Ireland backstop is not necessary or wanted. International trade experts such as Shanker Singham advocate using tried and trusted techniques and procedures so that rules of origin and customs checks are conducted away from the Northern Ireland border, making a hard border unnecessary.

The EU, however, will not commit to a free trade deal until we have left and that is fair enough. So we should press for early talks after March 29 with a generous offer based on tariff-free trade with few barriers. In the meantime, the Government is right to finally be vigorously preparing for a managed WTO Brexit, which holds far less risk than the various fear campaigns have tried to suggest.

Be under no illusions. Leaving without a Withdrawal Agreement is not the same as leaving without agreements. There will be several deals in place, including membership of the Common Transit Convention and the WTO, a trade facilitation agreement, and others as set out recently by the EU. There is a shared interest in a good flow of traffic through our ports, and action is being taken to ensure trade continues sensibly.

I appreciate we all want to get Brexit done to move on, but if we get it wrong, we are stuck with what is agreed and a bad deal will lead to more division and uncertainty. Therefore, it is crucial that we get it right whenever the moment of reckoning comes – be it mid-January or later.

What this country needs now is direction and leadership. When the British people see there is hope and a path to a brighter future, they will urge our leaders to finish the job. We must stop being side-tracked by those who were never reconciled to Brexit, prepare for no deal in the sure knowledge it makes a good deal more likely, and seize the prize of a global future for the UK.

Bolded emphasis is mine, and serve to highlight the most dangerous lies on offer here. What 'trade facilitation agreement' is he referencing? Oh yeah. Those temporary unilateral measures recently set out by the EU. I am left - as I so consistently find with self proclaimed 'proud Brexiteers - choosing between ignorance or grand deception as descriptors for this piece.

He is lying or ignorant of the significance of the ECJ ruling on the UK's unilateral right to rescind A50. And he is lying or confused on the Canda+++ option that apparently has been "offered". As the excellent Sir Ivan Rogers speech from before Christmas noted, beware those charlatans brandishing deals with plusses as fait accomplis.

This is incredibly irresponsible and dangerous nonsense - and it is only the beginning of a new round of unseemly Westminster infighting as the clock ticks down towards self inflicted economic Armageddon.

One of the "top" comments (i.e. most thanked) highlight how silly this has all become:

We voted to LEAVE and TAKE BACK CONTROL: not remain shackled to the EU.

A managed No Deal ie a clean break Brexit is what we voted for and what the CON Party is duty bound to deliver.

During the 2016 referendum I don't ever remember hearing the terms "Managed No Deal" or "Clean Break Brexit". In fact I don't ever remember a focus on "No Deal" or what that could possible entail. The repackaging of an incredibly disastrous and disorderly exit as stable and non extreme political policy is utter madness. It is most certainly *not* what people voted for. They didn't know what they were voting for, but they were certainly never seriously sold this present lunacy.

Thomas_IV

CelticRambler wrote: »

How do you reconcile the notion that the EU is "chuckling smugly" when its senior politicians have said (on and off the record) that the Brexit and the current WA is a lose-lose state of affairs? Hardly the kind of thing to chuckle over.

And is there any point in using the adjective "accidental" now, when the WA is on the table waiting to be approved by the UK; and expecting it to be defeated, the EU is upactivating previously-made preparations for a no-deal Brexit?

Your posts echo so many of Theresa May's speeches (including various public and parliamentary addresses as recently as December) where she talks about vague ambitions for the future. Brexit, for the Brexiteers, seems to be something of a pleasant dream, in which they imagine themselves sleepwalking naked around the village green, but from which they expect to wake up very soon, to find they're safe in their comfy bed, still in their pyjamas. Meanwhile, the EU is watching a sad old lady wandering aimlessly and undressed around the high street, telling people that she used to be a famous actress once, and wondering what to do with her ...

That's some very good description of the situation. As for the poster you were replying to, I think that I shall ignore him as I have read posts of that sort for too long and too many of it in the past 2 1/2 years.

Thomas_IV

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

David Davies with the kind of high level nonsense that will be lapped up and lauded by the Brexit base in today's Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/02/preparing-no-deal-properly-will-get-good-brexit-democracy-demands/



Bolded emphasis is mine, and serve to highlight the most dangerous lies on offer here. What 'trade facilitation agreement' is he referencing? Oh yeah. Those temporary unilateral measures recently set out by the EU. I am left - as I so consistently find with self proclaimed 'proud Brexiteers - choosing between ignorance or grand deception as descriptors for this piece.

He is lying or ignorant of the significance of the ECJ ruling on the UK's unilateral right to rescind A50. And he is lying or confused on the Canda+++ option that apparently has been "offered". As the excellent Sir Ivan Rogers speech from before Christmas noted, beware those charlatans brandishing deals with plusses as fait accomplis.

This is incredibly irresponsible and dangerous nonsense - and it is only the beginning of a new round of unseemly Westminster infighting as the clock ticks down towards self inflicted economic Armageddon.

There's apparently no cure for the delusion of the many Brexiteers whether they have been in May's cabinet, are still in there or never have been. This Brexit will end in tatters and the closer the exit date comes, the more likely it will go that way. It is even worse with Corbyn as leader of the opposition ignoring the latest polls from among his own party members and he still refuse to change course and back up a BrexitRef2. He's the supposed 'Remainer' that always was and still is a Brexiter himself.

Thomas_IV

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you English, because that is a particularly arrogant English view in my opinion.
There are any number of scenarios that will bring about another Scottish Indy Ref and a first Border poll.

The fact is for above English that we are perilously close to both.
It wasn't me who claimed Corbyn would be PM (although I don't see why that couldn't happen) but it was me that said 2 years ago and since, that we are really watching a 20 year break up of the UK.
History will look back and see these shennanigans as one of the symptoms of that, as was the first Scottish Ref.

I see it that way too. The UK is doomed by that Brexit folly brought onto herself by lying politicians who managed to delude 52% of the electorate. Some of them might have waken up and realised that they have been led up the garden path, but the chances to make a u-turn by getting a BrexitRef2 are melting away.

FrancieBrady

Thomas_IV wrote: »

I see it that way too. The UK is doomed by that Brexit folly brought onto herself by lying politicians who managed to delude 52% of the electorate. Some of them might have waken up and realised that they have been led up the garden path, but the chances to make a u-turn by getting a BrexitRef2 are melting away.

Second referendum, another election, withdrawal of Article 50...makes no difference, I think the concept of a 'UK' is in decline and will sunder, regardless. Brexit is only a symptom of the malaise affecting society of our nearest neighbour.

trellheim

David Davis is not wrong in many ways - he is largely correct in most of that statement. It is a mistake to dismiss DD . It should be remembered he got the EU Maastricht treaty through the Commons for John Major back in the 90s . It's also a trap to fall into to regard the UK as a somewhat 'special' child who just can't see that what they are doing is complete self-harm, as it sets up a polar opposites conversation and a screaming match where no-one is listening. ( and oh look thats exactly what is happening ).

That said I think there is little chance of anything but a vote on TM Deal ( and if its rejected - most likely will be then A50 extension vote and if thats voted down and it very likely will be then its no deal )

Leroy42

In what parts is he correct? His central argument is that they should reject this deal as another deal is certain to be given by the EU.

On what basis is he confident of that? Why was he not able to get any movement whilst he was in the role, and then Raab?

He is basically saying that they should gamble on something on the basis that he thinks it may happen but has no answer to how they deal with a No deal (apart from saying that No Deal isn't really No deal as they will have other deals and still get to keep £39bn)

There may well be certain things he said that are correct, but that in of itself does not make the opinion piece correct.

Tell me how

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Second referendum, another election, withdrawal of Article 50...makes no difference, I think the concept of a 'UK' is in decline and will sunder, regardless. Brexit is only a symptom of the malaise affecting society of our nearest neighbour.

And the Brexiteers feel that the EU is on the brink of collapse.

Personally, I think the EU is strong and the UK is shooting itself in the foot. It has increased the likelihood of the North of Ireland and Scotland separating from the rest of the UK due in part to the England centric focus on how they are managing leaving.

However, the UK leaving the EU (irrespective of what happens to it when it is gone) is going to be damaging to the EU and I fear will increase the likelihood that others too will leave.

FrancieBrady

Tell me how wrote: »

And the Brexiteers feel that the EU is on the brink of collapse.

Personally, I think the EU is strong and the UK is shooting itself in the foot. It has increased the likelihood of the North of Ireland and Scotland separating from the rest of the UK due in part to the England centric focus on how they are managing leaving.

However, the UK leaving the EU (irrespective of what happens to it when it is gone) is going to be damaging to the EU and I fear will increase the likelihood that others too will leave.

I fail to see what is attractive about 'leaving' after the last few years. The process alone has severely damaged the country.

Any damage to Ireland or the rest of the EU is eminently repairable and recoverable. It doesn't show any signs of being the same for the UK. Brexit, if it happens is not going to cure their root issues.

Zubeneschamali

trellheim wrote: »

That said I think there is little chance of anything but a vote on TM Deal ( and if its rejected - most likely will be then A50 extension vote and if thats voted down and it very likely will be then its no deal )

Westminster cannot extend A50, they can only ask the 27 to extend it. I don't think there is time now to get all 27 to agree. If the WA is voted down, the options are No Deal or withdraw A50.


No Deal is economic insanity, so in normal times you would say no-one would opt for it, but these are not normal times. But it is also political suicide, the Tories might never recover from it, so I still think they will not do it.


So we will have 2 months of chaos in Westminster, then they will pull A50 and set up an all-party committee to bury Brexit.

Professor Moriarty

Tell me how wrote: »

And the Brexiteers feel that the EU is on the brink of collapse.

Personally, I think the EU is strong and the UK is shooting itself in the foot. It has increased the likelihood of the North of Ireland and Scotland separating from the rest of the UK due in part to the England centric focus on how they are managing leaving.

However, the UK leaving the EU (irrespective of what happens to it when it is gone) is going to be damaging to the EU and I fear will increase the likelihood that others too will leave.

It's possible but I would have thought the opposite. Any government looking at a relatively robust economy and society, like the UK, splintering and self-harming as a result of Brexit, will think twice before going down the same path.

LuckyLloyd

trellheim wrote: »

David Davis is not wrong in many ways - he is largely correct in most of that statement. It is a mistake to dismiss DD . It should be remembered he got the EU Maastricht treaty through the Commons for John Major back in the 90s . It's also a trap to fall into to regard the UK as a somewhat 'special' child who just can't see that what they are doing is complete self-harm, as it sets up a polar opposites conversation and a screaming match where no-one is listening. ( and oh look thats exactly what is happening ).

That said I think there is little chance of anything but a vote on TM Deal ( and if its rejected - most likely will be then A50 extension vote and if thats voted down and it very likely will be then its no deal )

"Largely correct"

Except for the bits that aren't correct:

- about how A50 can be rescinded by another act of parliament
- about how prepared the UK is for No Deal
- about how he mischaracterizes the arrangements 'set out by the EU' for a No Deal scenario
- about the Canada+++ that has apparently been offered

The man is a buffoon and he is certainly not listening to the other side - he didn't even turn up to Brussels to hear them speak.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

no answer to how they deal with a No deal

He says that the UK has made No Deal preparations, but they are secret:


We also know that the UK’s no deal preparations are well advanced. A senior civil servant, writing in The Telegraph last week, said the Government is failing to be frank about the degree of preparation.

Thomas_IV

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I fail to see what is attractive about 'leaving' after the last few years. The process alone has severely damaged the country.

Any damage to Ireland or the rest of the EU is eminently repairable and recoverable. It doesn't show any signs of being the same for the UK. Brexit, if it happens is not going to cure their root issues.

Quite right, but Brexit will certainly worsen them.

Tell me how

trellheim wrote: »

David Davis is not wrong in many ways - he is largely correct in most of that statement. It is a mistake to dismiss DD . It should be remembered he got the EU Maastricht treaty through the Commons for John Major back in the 90s . It's also a trap to fall into to regard the UK as a somewhat 'special' child who just can't see that what they are doing is complete self-harm, as it sets up a polar opposites conversation and a screaming match where no-one is listening. ( and oh look thats exactly what is happening ).

That said I think there is little chance of anything but a vote on TM Deal ( and if its rejected - most likely will be then A50 extension vote and if thats voted down and it very likely will be then its no deal )

Watching his performance when he was Minister for Brexit has lead me to think it impossible that this man ever responsibly delivered anything. He was a government whip during Maastrict. That's a very different role to negotiating with the EU or leading the negotiating team.

"We are building a detailed understanding of how the withdrawal from the EU will affect domestic policies, to seize opportunities and ensure a smooth process of exit."

- David Davis to House of Commons, 5 September 2016

"We currently have in place an assessment of 51 sectors of the economy.

"I should mention that we are also doing that assessment in a way that will throw up whether something has an impact on the individual nations of the United Kingdom, as well as on the UK as a whole."

- David Davis to House of Commons, 20 October 2016

- David Davis to BBC Andrew Marr Show, 25 June 2017

From the Guardian on that 2nd video

In a sometimes gruelling appearance before the Brexit select committee Davis said there had been “no systematic impact assessment” of leaving the EU, having talked previously about such apparent studies existing “in excruciating detail”. Davis insisted he had been misunderstood, saying the only work undertaken comprised broad surveys of various parts of the economy, none of which included any forecasts of how Brexit might affect them.

Anyone who thinks David Davis is right, or that he would do a better job on this is either deliberately lying, or should admit that they do not know what they are talking about.

trellheim

Westminster cannot extend A50, they can only ask the 27 to extend it. I don't think there is time now to get all 27 to agree. If the WA is voted down, the options are No Deal or withdraw A50.

Apologies - you are correct. I should have said vote for "A50 withdrawal" Although they may "Vote to ask for A50 extension". That itself is fraught with danger as without a timeline of at least 5 years the MEP numbers will cause massive issues among a million other things .

Additionally I am not sure EU27 would let them without a min 10 year guarantee of no further A50 .

Nody

Tell me how wrote: »

However, the UK leaving the EU (irrespective of what happens to it when it is gone) is going to be damaging to the EU and I fear will increase the likelihood that others too will leave.

I'd disagree; if you look at some recent votes where such a push was possible it went overwhelming against the idea. France, Italy (where the parties were talking about just that etc.) and it was rejected in every case. UK is showing exactly why leaving EU is a bad idea and exactly what EU's response to the idea would be. Most people may not love EU but they also realize the benefits it has for them in terms of the companies located there.

Tell me how

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's possible but I would have thought the opposite. Any government looking at a relatively robust economy and society, like the UK, splintering and self-harming as a result of Brexit, will think twice before going down the same path.

Yes, but in future, any country considering leaving will have the following.

The UK media loudly extolling the benefits of sovereignty and trying to influence their media.
Nigel Farage, Johnson, Rees-Mogg attending events as guest speakers either saying how well the UK is doing, or blaming the EU for not being reasonable (thus enforcing ideals as to how bad they are).
The UK suggesting that should they leave, the UK market of 70M people will likely be willing to create trade deals.

All it needs to go down this dark path is a right wing government to promise a referendum on EU membership and then the dark forces will kick in. I hope I'm wrong but the hardest one to leave is the first one.