Brexit, a dead end?

With current talks in Parliament reaching nowhere and with a very few people backing the currently proposed deal, also the EU are not willing to make adjustments as well. The Parliament are also not in a majority for any deal on the table and wish to make the table longer by extending Brexit.
Have we reached a dead end on Brexit?

Not quite.

Although it is possible for May to fudge a few months it is not possible to persist past December if she does not deliver Brexit.

We have local elections in May which may force a resolution if a swing away from the government occurs or if forced to contest the European elections.

The manner of our extention also matters. Although the PM may request it, there is still talk of the Cooper amendment being on the table which would almost certainly force a general election if passed. No executive could tolerate that precedent.

Essentially we are likely looking at a general election to force a majority for some solution.

With current talks in Parliament reaching nowhere and with a very few people backing the currently proposed deal, also the EU are not willing to make adjustments as well. The Parliament are also not in a majority for any deal on the table and wish to make the table longer by extending Brexit.
Have we reached a dead end on Brexit?

That is a solution to the problem, however if Parliament are not able to reach a majority on any deal on the table then we have reached a dead end.

With current talks in Parliament reaching nowhere and with a very few people backing the currently proposed deal, also the EU are not willing to make adjustments as well. The Parliament are also not in a majority for any deal on the table and wish to make the table longer by extending Brexit.
Have we reached a dead end on Brexit?

I have a secret to tell you:

Brexit was always going to go in this direction. There have been serious anti-EU sentiments rising in Poland, Norway, France, Italy. If Britain had succeeded well(Or even with minimal difficulties), those other areas would have been fuelled in to leaving as well. If the EU was too draconian in their push, the sympathies of the world would mean those other groups were fuelled.

The only way for the EU to win was for Britain to lose. And Britain didn't want to lose. For Britain to win, Europe cannot and vice versa.

This means that Britain always had to keep the idea of a no-deal Brexit on the table. Doing so would harm the economy of the EU and Britain and probably lead to a downturn in the worlds economy. Probably, that downturn would be minor - But the world economy is known for being hit with 'Perfect storms' as we see with the dotcom bubbles of the early aughts and the housing bubble later on - So the downturn, due to panic and misunderstanding, could lead to something far worse.

Neither side wants that, so they are currently in one of two potential end-games. I say this to give you a background you almost assuredly know and understand so that you can understand what comes next:

1) The two countries are both reasonable and competent - If this is the case, the sabre-rattling simply gets Britain a better deal. Maybe Britain was feigning incompetence and weakness early on to force the EU to make a mistake in their negotiations by pushing negotiations to the last second. Britain is well-known for having some of the toughest negotiators around and this is possible. Even likely. But another, equally likely prospect is:

2) One or both of the countries are either unreasonable or incompetent or both - If this is the case(Maybe the EU wants to be more punitive than the UK is willing to accept, for instance, or both sides are panicking and unable to come up with things that will placate either of their bases), then things take a darker turn. The sabre-rattling is not sabre-rattling, but last minute desperate attempts to let the other side know they have lost control and the other side needs to capitulate more. These notes are ignored, to the peril of all. The world economy takes a downturn, the EU loses a trading partner to up and coming minor powers scrapping for a good deal to earn money and major powers follow suit if and when Britain stabilises via trade with those minor powers. Probably at that point, you see a year of rough times for Britain(Or so), a reduction in the GDP and a lot of anger on both sides of the Britain/EU divide as everything falls in to mutual recriminations and blame.

It(Probably) won't be devastating, but it'll be bad if number 2 is correct. If number 1 is correct, Britain comes out reasonably well and starts negotiating trade. CANZUK will probably become a major thing in the next few months. The world keeps spinning and life takes a short dip followed by an improvement, with Britain shifting its developmental priorities.

But yes, the UK would have to 'lose' and EU 'win' because otherwise other countries would follow the UK and the EU would collapse.

This argument has never made much sense to me. The EU says "We can't let Britain have this because then everyone will want that" - if everyone wants 'that' then maybe 'that' is what the EU should deliver!

The EU can't deliver what the UK wants because what the UK wants is to have all the benefits and advantages, but pay nothing and have non of the disadvantages. The EU is a partnership, a cooperation. You have to be able to compromise and share in a partnership, but the UK does not want that. If one country gets everything and gives nothing, how is that fair? Obviously, if the UK gets what they want, everyone else will want that too, but nothing in the world works that way. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Ah yes. The EU famously compromised when David Cameron tried to negotiate prior to the referendum.

Anyway that's a rather over-simplistic summation. If, for example, the UK wants to limit freedom of movement, and other countries would also want that, why can that not be agreed? (Other than that it would run counter to the ambitions of most senior EU politicians). Realistically, some kind of compromise on freedom of movement would have almost certainly kept the UK in the EU. Frankly, freedom of movement was a good idea originally when the economies involved were largely comparable but isn't when - as now - there are significant disparities.

When you hear that trump has backed down on immigration, you know that that's it for Western civilization. Democracy can no longer be trusted when it elects people who don't do what they promise, and do the exact opposite...

Norway isn't part of the EU? But yes, the UK would have to 'lose' and EU 'win' because otherwise other countries would follow the UK and the EU would collapse.

The deal David Cameron got was a good start. It wasn't perfect, but still good.

I don't think that many countries in the EU actually want to limit the freedom of movement besides the UK, so why would they limit the freedom of movement, when only one (or very few) countries wants to limit it? If only one country wants it and 27 others don't, it wouldn't really be a compromise because there's a huge majority.

So essentially the EU can't limit freedom of movement because then everyone would want that, although actually no one else does want to? Sounds about right for EU reasoning, but that doesn't mean it's got any basis in logic.

No we haven’t reached a dead end.

It is within the PM’s power to do no deal regardless what they vote next week it simply moves the date from the end of March to a later date.

Her plan is still the same scare enough MP’s to vote for her deal.

But there are some serious back benchers of even her own party who will not vote for her deal.

No we haven’t reached a dead end.

It is within the PM’s power to do no deal regardless what they vote next week it simply moves the date from the end of March to a later date.

Her plan is still the same scare enough MP’s to vote for her deal.