Exiled Canadian

My implication was that post the end of FoM the % of the electorate seeking further distance between the UK and EU would be reduced to a (vocal) minority.

Agreed - but my suspicion is that stopping FoM was the key driver of many Leave voters. With that gone its mostly trade with a bit of fish - not too many votes in either in a GE (in my uneducated view anyway).

Fair point - but I suspect that it was the closest possible deal to membership without FoM.

After the press started threatening the French with our navy I was wondering how long it would be before they decided to take aim at the Germans. We should have a sweepstake for the first one to spot mention of "Dunkirk", "their finest hour" or Spitfires.

Rff would have been existing "Soft Brexit" vs "No deal." As the ERG spotted Mays deal was BRINO until the backstop conditions were fulfilled.

I recall us discussing at the time how May's deal was the least unattractive of the likely options on the table at the time (I don't think a second ref was feasible until the UK had legally left the EU).

The "Irish backstop" effectively locked in a soft Brexit until the unicorns worked out how to have a border in Ireland without having a border. In some respects it was a massive triumph of "Sir Humpreyism" an apparently temporary permanent arrangement. On this analysisi I don't think that May would have had to pesent a trade deal before the next election. There would have been no pressure on anyone to conclude the talks.

A Country of 65m was always going to get shafted by a free trade area of 500m in any negotiation - it was bloody obvious as you say. Then we choose not to extend the transition and risk a no deal in the teeth of Covid, absolute genius, our weak hand got even worse. I thought I'd seen that some form of arbitration mechanism had been proposed. Quite possibly I was mistaken as I don't know where to go looking for a link.

The MP for Shewsbury and our trade envoy to Mongolia (I kid you not) is not in the government. That fact alone is proof that things could always get worse.

Firstly the UK is already a Sovereign nation so I have no idea what Johnson is waffling about. I think that there is a clear path to a deal now. On FTP UK is currently fully aligned and so with a decent arbitration mechanism and the UK retaining the right to take its ball home at a later date if it's not happy I can't why that issue can't be resolved. Fish is just a sideshow. I suspect both sides are bigging it up with a view to extracting maximum value for trading it away at the death. Holding the status quo won't actually make anyone worse off. The more difficult calculus is UK politics. Johnson will face a backlash whatever happens. Is it better for him to upset the ERG and re-energise Farage or face the economic music of no deal? The former could see him face a leadership challenge and also risk a split of the Tory vote at the next election as Farage and co will do their best to keep the Brexit issue alive. The latter shores up his right flank but also risks his being held responsible for the mother of all recessions when the full impact of Covid combines with a no deal Brexit. I suspect he'll plump for no deal and gamble that the economy will be in recovery mode in four years time. Boris always chooses what's best for Boris.

Interesting to speculate though. My suspicion is that a combination of Farage and the ERG screaming "betrayal" would have resulted in her removal and/or a split in the Conservative Party.

Possibly - but that would surely cause problems inthe Cabinet. Sunak is ex Goldman Sachs and would understand what was being thrown away for one. The Tory failthful in the stockbroker belt would also take a dim view I suspect.

If the UK is negotiating rationally (a significant assumption I know) then surely the UK is "bigging up" the fish issue to get maximum value for it when we finally throw it on the table. That would be a pretty classic negotiating tactic - take an issue that you're prepared to compromise on, make it look like it's a massive issue ("this would be poilitcal suicide for the PM") then trade it away at the last minute for the stuff you really want to get the deal over the line.

Nothing like living in a surveillance state at all then!

I'd agree. They've actually made the negotiating position worse. There must be a loss of trust on the EU side and it's pretty clear that the Dems in the US took a dim view (which is more leverage for the EU given the likely need for Dem support for any UK/US trade deal). Off course the Cons will probably get a bump in the polls on the basis that they "stood up for Britain" (a claim that doesn't stand up to even the most cursory analysis). That's probably all they were after.

And if they do reach that stage then there would seem to be little point in having included the clauses in the bill in the first place. Govt could have introduced legislation if circumstances demanded it (and would have been more likely to get it through). Was this all just a massive dead cat to distract from Covid cases increasing?

So Johnson legacy could end up being: 1. No deal Brexit 2. Massive recession (combination of Covid impact and no deal Brexit) 3. Scottish independence 4. Irish re-unification 5. UK seen as untrustworthy trade partner he's only had the job just over a year - what's his plan for the next four?

My uneducated view is that Johnson wants to achieve three things with this: 1. Distract from his govts handlng of C19, particularly as we may be at the start of a "second wave" with track and trace already seemingly struggling to cope. 2. Engineer the EU walking out of negotiations so they get the blame for "No deal". 3. Force Labour back to discussing Brexit which he sees as his (Johnsons) strong suit politically. If this results in a no deal Brexit the wheels come off once the shops start running out of food during a Covid spike with unemployment rising rapidly. When this happens Johnson will seek to blame the EU and rally everyone to the flag with lots of Churchillian rhetoric of 1940 vintage. Hoping that no one notices that he himself created the mess in the first place. I suspect that c.40% of the country will still buy into his act. He probably plans to retire as soon as Brexit is delivered - leaving his mates to sort the resulting mess.

I used to think the same. I negotiate pretty chunky deals for a living and am fully aware that "until you get the other side to walk away you don't know what their bottom line is." However doing something like this which calls into question your status as a good faith negotiator is a crazy thing to do. I'm starting to wonder if they've lost the plot. Trump gets away with this crap because he leads a world superpower. We're just a small island near Europe with a superiority complex.

No one is going to deal with us until there's a change of government. Four years at least.

We may be about to find out whether the EU "needs us more than we need them". I doubt it will be much fun.

You seem to know much about the mechanics of this. If there is no FTA and the UK decides to ignore the "unhelpful" part of the WA what do you think happens. My guess is: 1. EU has to impose some sort of border control in Ireland to protect the SM. 2 Chaos at Channel ports as customs procedures grind to a halt. 3. EU seeks damages/sanctions for breach of WA Given how the govt rhetoric will be positioned to "sell" all this at home I can't see anything being resolved until the UK has a change of govt. Sadly I suspect this is a likely outcome (I'm 50/50 on this or some sort of "bare bones" deal if Johnson blinks) - got anything to cheer me up?

We're in the same boat. Dual nationals who had previously decided to make the UK our long term home. We're now actively "contingency planning" about what would be least disruptive time for our child's education to move to Canada and considering moving what savings we can into $Can. It's very unsettling.

I expect Johnson to roll-over to get some sort of deal away (like he did last time round when he tried to portray the WA that May had rejected due to it requiring a border down the Irish Sea as somehow "new" and a great negotiating victory). He won't want to risk the potential chaos of no deal on top of Covid. Boris always does what's best for Boris - he'll be be worried about how this will all look in 5 years time when he's trying to rake in the cash on the lecture circuit - being billed as "The man who bust Britain" won't appeal.

I think you're right that any move to "looking forwards" will not happen to the next election. By that time the post Brexit position will be the status-quo and the question will be "how do we move on from here?". Starmer quite clearly has no appetite to re-litigate the Brexit debate so I don't imagine "rejoin" will be in the manifesto of either major party.