Delusional

[Workingman]

Love her or hate her, May has a better chance of giving the UK a good exit from the EU than any other politician currently standing for election...

So now it's a good exit rather than Brexit; and what is a "good exit" when it's at home? Is it part in - part out? Is it a "cherry pick" or a bespoke deal? Err, no, the EU has already said so. And why is it good for May to say "no deal is better than a bad deal" but for it to be downright typical of the hated and intransigent EU when it says much the same thing?

She has left it to the people to decide.

Oh no, not in any way, no way at all. She has broken the spirit of the law to call an opportunistic general election to benefit the Tory party; and she has used Brexit as the excuse to do so. All we are getting to decide is to reaffirm those who will be negotiating for us, not the outcome.

When May comes back with her deal, that's it, rubber stamp, bang, done. The fear for you deluded leavers has to be that May campaigned for Remain, and though she talks the talk she might be prepared to sell some bits of silver. What will you do if the deal is a fudge... answers on the back of the new referendum ballot papers you lot will be baying for!

[Suff]

Well my view of a good deal is one that allows us to trade what we want to trade and the EU to trade what they want to trade and no more, now laws, no ecj, no freedom of movement, no open borders and absolutely no further encroachment of the EU state into the UK.

In that, should May win this election with an enhanced majority and keep to her current promises, then I'll be happy with what she does.

But, in the end, it will come down to her government. If she fudges and comes back with a mess which damages the UK, both Tory and Labour voters will be voting UKIP at the 2022 election. May knows that and that will stay her hand in these negotiations.

I did say it was up to the people at this election. She's set out her stall, given us the principles, not the detail and left us to decide if the principles are what we want. If she goes back on her principles then she and her party, will be hung at the next election. May is well aware of that.

So what is the risk for May? She walks away with no deal and no Brexit bill and 3 years later faces the people for doing what she promised, come what may? Or she fudges it, leaves the EU virtually fully open to access to the UK, subject to the ECJ and paying a monstrous bill for decades?

Chances? She's a politician. She'll walk away with no deal rather than face the wrath of the voters who brought her back.

So, for me, it looks OK. For soft Brexiters and remainers? Not so good.

The only thing we do know is that the UK will be out of the EU. No matter what May agrees to now, it will be up to the UK government, in the future, to chose to honour it or not. The EU27 will have nothing to say about it.

Oh and on another note, I believe that the legal eagles on EU law have stated that there is no legal precedent for the Brexit bill. Bit of a bummer for Juncker that...

Just on another point, there is a service here in France called Mouse to House. It brings goods from UK shops to people here in France with a 20% excess for carriage. One hell of a lot of Brits are doing their main shopping on it. I've used it once for doors from B&Q which were not ready for me to bring back, but that is all. M2H is dead in 2019 without a deal, all those people who use it, who have a vote, were voting remain but they don't even live in the UK.

Those with a vote will be voting against May and to soften Brexit and make it as damaging as possible for the people in the UK so they can get their deliveries......

I'm wondering, would you rather have May's aggressive Brexit or have your country stuffed by a bunch of people who left but will happily sell you down the river rather than learn to speak French and pay for local produce??

[Workingman]

A good deal, of sorts, might be akin to the one the EU has with Mexico, which allows for the trade of goods and services without the free movement of people, but there are two obvious difficultires.

The first is that Mexico is on another continent and has never been party to any European trade organisations or institutions. The second has many facets. The UK is part of Europe, physically, mentally, culturally and politically. It has also been part of Europe's institutions and their rules, from EFTA, the EEC to the EU.

All of those things plus CAP, CFP, Europol. Euratom, European arrest warrant etc.. muddy the waters somewhat. However, with a bit of goodwill on both sides, they can be solved. The solutions might not be on the day of signing and might take years, but they can be solved.

The same is true with free movement. It is obvious that it will go on the day we leave, there is little doubt about that, which then leaves discussions over the rights of EU citizens in the UK, and vice versa, so how about this.

Both sides agree to protect the rights of those already in situ on the day of the referendum, but only spouses and their children. Let's face it, they played under one set of rules and it is unfair to any of them to retrospectively impose a new set of rules at a later date. I would offer those current citizens something similar to dual nationality so that they could carry out their lives as they had planned pre Brexit.

Those who moved after the referendum would simply work to the same rules they would follow if they moved to any other foreign country.

[Suff]

That would work for me. But there is one dealbreaker here for me. The UK is the UK and the ECJ has no jurisdiction, however the EU wants to have legal control over EU citizens even if they live in the UK. That's a total nono for me and, as you say, if it were akin to dual citizenship then the UK laws would apply and be supreme.

I've said before I would also be willing to pay something for a period of time in order to be free of the EU and their institutions. But, honestly, they are extracting the urine with their demands. In that case it's nothing.

If the ECJ is to be the supreme court for UK citizens in the EU, fine, UK citizens would be living where it is the law.

This, I believe, makes sense what we are discussing. But I don't believe that there is the will or the objectivity, to make it happen. On either side right now.

[Workingman]

The ECJ was the reason I mentioned offering something like dual nationality or shared nationality as they are a bit of a half way house.

A quick example: A French couple working in the UK would do so under UK rules but would revert to EU rules when working across the channel.

I agree that it needs fine tuning, quite a lot, but it offers a way out of the impasse we have now.

Heads need banging together.