May's deal with the EU

Trade deals with the Anglosphere could replace anything up to 10% of the trade we would lose with the EU. What do you propose to do about the remaining 90%?

Not to mention how will you deal with a situation where millions and millions of British citizens can no longer easily go on holiday to Spain, buy affordable olives and hummus and wine in the shops, or get their grandparents nursed in hospitals?

Perhaps you can forward their complaints to Nigel Farage at his substantial property in Brussels. He will have time on his hands as he is keeping his EU pension, paid for by us.

We are living through one of the very stupidist things that Britain has ever done. In the middle of this mess, Theresa May (you have to feel sorry for her) has the impossible job of attempting to reconcile reality with the madcap lust of her Brexiteering MPs, most of them wealthy white men with investments in disaster-driven hedge funds and the like.

Eventually, reality will break through.

Then in steps PM Corbyn

I think that the UK should walk away from any further negotiations with the EU to be perfectly honest. Theresa May said herself "No deal is better than a bad deal" and we appear to have a bad deal BEFORE trade negotiations have even begun. £40bn of taxpayers money is simply not good enough, let alone the strings attached with the ECJ and the further subjection to EU legislation that we have absolutely no say on. I would have voted leave in the referendum and did vote for the Conservatives in the last election and genuinely believe May MUST go for the sake of Brexit.

Theresa May (you have to feel sorry for her)

The £40bn is what we would pay anyway for transition year's memberships. A lot of it comes back.

No deal would mean a total national economic collapse. Do you realise how bad things would be? No flights to or across the EU. Massive queues for goods and people at Dover and Calais - literally back to the 1950s. Very little food in the shops. Massive unemployment.

I think that the UK should walk away from any further negotiations with the EU to be perfectly honest. Theresa May said herself "No deal is better than a bad deal" and we appear to have a bad deal BEFORE trade negotiations have even begun. £40bn of taxpayers money is simply not good enough, let alone the strings attached with the ECJ and the further subjection to EU legislation that we have absolutely no say on. I would have voted leave in the referendum and did vote for the Conservatives in the last election and genuinely believe May MUST go for the sake of Brexit.

It's really rather cute that you think the country should get rogered for the sake of some petty ideological reason.

Quite the opposite, I want what is best for the United Kingdom. I think people forget how great our nation really is and we deserve far better than the EU which has single-handedly destroyed Europe.

It's really rather cute that you think the country should get rogered for the sake of some petty ideological reason.

I hate this sort of scaremongering, leaving the EU will not cause the UK to be on the verge of starvation like you are insinuating, neither will unemployment rise. In fact, since the EU referendum unemployment has actually fallen to the lowest rate since 1975, and this is with so called 'uncertainty' caused by the vote. Do you really think that the EU would stop flights from the UK considering the amount of money that nations in the EU generate from UK tourists? Personally, I do not think so. But lets take the worst case scenario in that instance, the UK will actually see huge benefits for domestic tourism. Domestic tourism actually rose 15% in 2017, this is unprecedented.

But you are right that no deal isn't as good as a good deal, which we are all vouching for. We must however play a hard-line with the EU and be willing to threaten a no deal scenario, this will give us superiority in negotiations and prevent the EU from continuing to make unsatisfactory demands.

It's interesting that the left has decided, apparently for the purposes only of Brexit, that money and trade are everything and that principles don't matter.

Maintaining control of our laws, borders, and institutions is now a matter of 'petty ideology'

Who's 'we'?

I'd prefer a war chest and trade deals with the anglosphere, although having said this I would prefer not to be leaving anyway. When push comes to shove, I'd gladly see an Anglo Samson Option quite frankly.

What is it with you wingnuts and making everything about left wing vs. right wing? It's a rather lazy arguement to make imho.
Leaving aside the fact i am not 'left wing' as you so eloquently assume.

It's more than you right wingers don't have any respect for our laws, borders or institutions anyway. Undermining our judicial system and representatives by calling them 'traitors' would be a rather obvious example for that.

Also what is with this rather hoary old arguement that just because these things are 'ours' that this makes them somehow good? Our governments regularly curtail our freedoms and act contrary to the peoples interests whilst the EU, relative to British government, makes a point of protecting our rights such as privacy, against corporate greed and abuse etc.

Not to mention our boarders and sovereignty are going to be obliterated in the name of 'trade deals' anyway.

It largely is in this case.

The attack on the judicial system we saw during the Miller case was totally unacceptable, but there is bad media that caters to both sides. The Independent is gaining social media traction from some outrageous lie about Tory policy on a weekly basis now. Remember when they claimed that The Tories had decided that animals did not have feelings, contrary to the advice of scientists?

When, on the other hand, politicians cave to pressure and sell out an interest that they said they'd defend it is extreme but not necessarily so fundamentally wrong to describe them as traitors. I seem to remember quite a lot of students declaring Nick Clegg a traitor not so long ago.

This is a bigger point. I won't get into it because it's not going to be possible to do it briefly. But I expect you basically understand the point about this, even if you claim not to.

I don't think you have any real basis for saying this. We'd be likely to agree particular regulatory provisions and immigration rules as part of many trade deals, but this would be done on a case-by-case basis and decided in the interest of the UK by our ministers. We would not in any such case be granting general legislative authority to a foreign legislative body or wide-ranging judicial supremacy to a foreign court, as is the case with the EU. We would not be creating a generally superior body that looks very much like, and clearly wants to be, a State in such circumstances, which is what a lot of us most strongly object to.