Article 50 trigger 29th March

Was that to me Daphne. If so, thank you. There seem to be quite a few summaries so some one must have published the original research. The only sources I could find were not ones I would trust. I'll follow that one up and shout if I get stuck - thanks.

I recommend Nick Clegg's book "Politics - Behind the extremes" rosesarered. Nick Clegg made many mistakes and he knows it, but he's no fool.

If I have time and the energy tomorrow or in the next couple of days, I'll summarise all the polling and research evidence about who voted what in the referendum. I doubt if it will surprise anyone (apart from those with a permanent head in the sand), but it will provide some evidence, for what it's worth in this "post truth" age.

PS. I only believe "credible" sources and I'm acutely aware of the way the media cherry picks results to support biased arguments.

Just listening to Hilary Benn on the radio. Commons committee on Leaving the EU has published a report calling for a clear analysis of the effects of leaving without a trade deal (which is what PM seems to be hurtling towards).
Not good enough to say "no deal is better than a bad deal". Several eurosceptics on committee dissented. Presumably because they would prefer that the truth is not revealed.
In reality there is not much more than a year to negotiate a mountain of issues.
EU elections coming up, which will be a distraction. Then there is the long break that some countries have over the summer. And the European Parliament are expecting to vote on the deal late in 2019. That's about 18 months of work at most isn't it. Terrifying.

They did more than dissent. They walked out of the meeting.
And they say remainers are childish for not accepting things.

Surely no deal IS a bad deal? Don't understand that statement.

I will be astounded if they succeed.

Of course the government must provide evidence to such a statement. The 6 who refused to sign said they did so because the paper was rushed. Well given the time scale everyone is working to time is not exactly in anyone's side is it and they need to wake up to the fact. Besides which how can a simple question be rushed?? Odd.

You'll have to ask Theresa May about that. She came up with the phrase.
However, the government is well known for not doing cost/benefit analyses for their ideas before they put them into practice. They keep getting asked for them about every change in the NHS, but never do them. Why should they be expected to be different with Brexit?

Brexiters seem to hate either answering questions or being questioned in the first place. It just shows what dodgy ground they are on and how little confidence they have about the great Brexit project.

Of course no deal is better than a bad deal, why on earth would we accept a bad deal.

Your idea of a bad deal might be someone else's idea of a good deal.
Brexiteers might think a bad deal is one which includes present environmental laws. I would think it a good deal. The same with labour laws.
I think a good deal would be one that included freedom of movement for goods and people. A bad deal would exclude freedom of movement for people.
So what's your idea of a bad deal?

That phrase is as meaningless as Brexit means Brexit.

But perhaps "no deal" is the worst possible deal. (Borders close, heavy tariffs on agricultural products, financial sector crippled etc)
And based on the false premise that they will be able to get any deal at all on trade in the 18 month timescale. All experts say that trade deals take about a decade.
So the country needs to know what "hard brexit" really means.
I note that Hammond is in India. Hope that he is not persuaded to wear a ceremonial-weight sari to try to win favour.

No deal puts us in a very, very bad place for trade and thus for our economy. No deal has us immediately subject to WTO rules. They are not good.

No deal means that our borders with the EU become 'hard' immediately on 30th March 2019. Massive queues for customs checks at ports, dislocation of trade and of industries, such as the car industry, dependent on 'just in time' delivery of components from or to the EU.

No deal means EU citizens in UK and British citizens in EU have continued insecurity over their rights to reside and long term future.

No deal means UK air operators lose rights to fly over EU airspace so all flights to & over EU countries immediately grounded.

Need I continue?

That's why they aren't keen to outline what a no deal means

They are still trying to protect lies. If we voted out knowing exactly what we were going into there could be little argument but we did not. I am beginning to feel that the idea of another referendum (I can't bear the thought but perhaps it's the only answer) or an election will have to happen. If we don't the election following the change will be that by default. It's a horrifying thought but I do think we - all of us - were put in a position where we didn't know the pro and cons of the new setup - no one seems to have done.

That's why they aren't keen to outline what a no deal means

Extraordinary, isn't it? Pro Brexit members of the select committee covering their ears and singing 'la, la, la'.

Knowledgeable commentators have been outlining for months just what a 'no deal' would involve.

But no, it's still 'Project Fear' and 'Theresa May will see us right'.

The Economist editorial this week pulls no punches. A hard exit would be a very very bad thing for the economy.

Us remainers had worked that out before the vote.

But what none of you seem to be taking into consideration is the fact that all those EU countries want to trade with us, they are anxious to keep on selling us all those commodities that we currently buy from them in massive amounts.So, yes, we need a deal, but so do they.It's in their interest (national interest as countries) to keep on selling to us.We may be a small country, in area, but in every other way punch above our weight. The problem is that the EU is so lumbering, at 27 countries it never gets things done quickly, so if time is running out ( and the EU won't extend it) then no deal is better than a bad deal, or we won't even reach a place where we will be offered a bad deal.

The Government cannot force the EU to work quickly, even though it is in the national interest of all the countries within the EU to do so.

They may want to trade with us currently but you have no idea on what terms they will do that in the future or whether they will decide to get what they want elsewhere - even if it is more expensive or difficult to get. I know nothing that only the UK produces so there are other places they can go. If the tariffs are high enough it may well be cheaper for them do so. Please tell me where you think we 'punch' over our weight?

We are already damaging some of our leading industries - how many do you think will want to be educated here - it's an industry Roses. Because all the nasty Little Englanders - few and far between yes but blown out of all proportion over the last year or so - I would, if I was a student looking to go to University over the next couple of years be looking elsewhere and each year, unless we ensure it is attractive, more and more will be.

I think the UK is great but how long will we be the UK? When we really are Little England, even if we punch above our weight that may not get us very far. We need alliances, friends and good relationships and we will need to recover them fast. How will India, China, the US look at what we did to those we were in agreed partnership with? Do you think they will be thinking - oh well those little, old people wanted their county back. No they will be thinking that actually they don't like people from the rest of the world and they renege on agreements. Not much has happened yet but do not kid yourself that it can't.

good post gg

Why is it that the citizens of other countries Scotland in particular are admired for being patriotic, in Scotlands case Nationalism is greatly admired but to feel the same about England is to be sneeringly referred to as a Little Englander! Why aren't we allowed to be patriotic or even nationalistic! God forbid!!!!!

And I don't think the Welsh would be pleased to be lumped together with England in such a derogatory way, even if the majority of them did vote to leave the EU...