I have given less consideration for effectively a United Ireland as a result of brexit. One because I can't see the powers that be accepting a break up of the UK with knock on for Scotland, but as a sweeping uncomplicated solution to the border problem it has appeal. Except of course the Tories now depend on the DUP to sustain power. Maybe the choice is either a United Ireland or no brexit at all.
It's not though.
I'm a remainer but I also believe in the Union (so long as the people of the four countries want it), in this regard we cannot allow for Northern Ireland to be treated any differently to Surrey, they are both indivisible British territory.
The only actual options are:
No Brexit (no chance) Brexit, Norway style (the sensible option) Brexit full monty (years of reduced financial growth, ultimately for no financial gain but we get blue passports)
I have given less consideration for effectively a United Ireland as a result of brexit. One because I can't see the powers that be accepting a break up of the UK with knock on for Scotland, but as a sweeping uncomplicated solution to the border problem it has appeal. Except of course the Tories now depend on the DUP to sustain power. Maybe the choice is either a United Ireland or no brexit at all.
The DUP won’t countenance any deviation on the NI/ROI border than to any other border the U.K. has post Brexit. That will be a red line. No idea how it will be resolved and more worryingly nor does the government.
When people bandy around terms of a hard or soft or frictionless or technological border it bemuses me. At the moment travelling from Northern Ireland to the Republic and back is like going from Lewisham to Greenwich. If it stays like that in Ireland then good, but it won't be brexit in the terms repeatedly pushed at us. Seriously I anticipate a situation where people call for the entire world population to be microchipped in the ear lobe or something. Technology is not going to be the solution here, trust me.
I have given less consideration for effectively a United Ireland as a result of brexit. One because I can't see the powers that be accepting a break up of the UK with knock on for Scotland, but as a sweeping uncomplicated solution to the border problem it has appeal. Except of course the Tories now depend on the DUP to sustain power. Maybe the choice is either a United Ireland or no brexit at all.
The DUP won’t countenance any deviation on the NI/ROI border than to any other border the U.K. has post Brexit. That will be a red line. No idea how it will be resolved and more worryingly nor does the government.
Neither does the government.
I have a strong feeling you didn't read the previous post all the way to the end.
I have given less consideration for effectively a United Ireland as a result of brexit. One because I can't see the powers that be accepting a break up of the UK with knock on for Scotland, but as a sweeping uncomplicated solution to the border problem it has appeal. Except of course the Tories now depend on the DUP to sustain power. Maybe the choice is either a United Ireland or no brexit at all.
The DUP won’t countenance any deviation on the NI/ROI border than to any other border the U.K. has post Brexit. That will be a red line. No idea how it will be resolved and more worryingly nor does the government.
Neither does the government.
I have a strong feeling you didn't read the previous post all the way to the end.
I have given less consideration for effectively a United Ireland as a result of brexit. One because I can't see the powers that be accepting a break up of the UK with knock on for Scotland, but as a sweeping uncomplicated solution to the border problem it has appeal. Except of course the Tories now depend on the DUP to sustain power. Maybe the choice is either a United Ireland or no brexit at all.
The DUP won’t countenance any deviation on the NI/ROI border than to any other border the U.K. has post Brexit. That will be a red line. No idea how it will be resolved and more worryingly nor does the government.
Neither does the government.
I have a strong feeling you didn't read the previous post all the way to the end.
God, you got strong feelings for me... Oooh err.
I wouldn't say that. And, with due respect, you don't have to call me God.
There’s only one thing we can do now. Leave badly which we are doing, re-enter and then ask to leave again to see if we can demonstrate we can do a better job the 2nd time round.
There’s only one thing we can do now. Leave badly which we are doing, re-enter and then ask to leave again to see if we can demonstrate we can do a better job the 2nd time round.
Brexit has replaced the UK’s stiff upper lip with quivering rage
...
The most fascinating feature of the debate is that the far left and far right agree against the centre. They may agree on little else. But they concur that the EU is a conspiracy against parliamentary sovereignty — against the right of a temporary parliamentary majority to do as it pleases with the people. For a leftwing socialist, the aim is to create a socialist paradise. For a rightwing free-marketeer, it is to create a capitalist one. Either way, the EU is the enemy....
...How will this end? The answer is that anything is possible. Could there still be a “no-deal Brexit”? Yes. Could there be another referendum? Yes. But the likelihood is that the UK will exit on terms laid down, in detail, by the EU. When a country is this divided and its political processes are in such disarray, someone else has to sort things out. The EU will do so, because that is in its interests.
The EU will not let the UK have its cake and eat it. It is led by people who also have a historical goal: not to return to the past. Their history was not British history and their aims are not British aims. They will determine the terms of the separation. We will then see whether the UK’s civil war is resolved, or renewed in other, yet more bitter, ways.
If/when the UK do vote to rejoin the EU at a future stage it would probably mean signing up to the euro as well. Ironically this could mean that, in a roundabout way, the Leave voters will have brought the UK closer to the EU eventually. All because of a yearning for sovereignty that was never lost in the first place.
Brexit has replaced the UK’s stiff upper lip with quivering rage
...
The most fascinating feature of the debate is that the far left and far right agree against the centre. They may agree on little else. But they concur that the EU is a conspiracy against parliamentary sovereignty — against the right of a temporary parliamentary majority to do as it pleases with the people. For a leftwing socialist, the aim is to create a socialist paradise. For a rightwing free-marketeer, it is to create a capitalist one. Either way, the EU is the enemy....
...How will this end? The answer is that anything is possible. Could there still be a “no-deal Brexit”? Yes. Could there be another referendum? Yes. But the likelihood is that the UK will exit on terms laid down, in detail, by the EU. When a country is this divided and its political processes are in such disarray, someone else has to sort things out. The EU will do so, because that is in its interests.
The EU will not let the UK have its cake and eat it. It is led by people who also have a historical goal: not to return to the past. Their history was not British history and their aims are not British aims. They will determine the terms of the separation. We will then see whether the UK’s civil war is resolved, or renewed in other, yet more bitter, ways.
Excellent? Sorry but it's utter bollocks to claim only those that want Brexit are on the extremes of politics.
Brexit has replaced the UK’s stiff upper lip with quivering rage
...
The most fascinating feature of the debate is that the far left and far right agree against the centre. They may agree on little else. But they concur that the EU is a conspiracy against parliamentary sovereignty — against the right of a temporary parliamentary majority to do as it pleases with the people. For a leftwing socialist, the aim is to create a socialist paradise. For a rightwing free-marketeer, it is to create a capitalist one. Either way, the EU is the enemy....
...How will this end? The answer is that anything is possible. Could there still be a “no-deal Brexit”? Yes. Could there be another referendum? Yes. But the likelihood is that the UK will exit on terms laid down, in detail, by the EU. When a country is this divided and its political processes are in such disarray, someone else has to sort things out. The EU will do so, because that is in its interests.
The EU will not let the UK have its cake and eat it. It is led by people who also have a historical goal: not to return to the past. Their history was not British history and their aims are not British aims. They will determine the terms of the separation. We will then see whether the UK’s civil war is resolved, or renewed in other, yet more bitter, ways.
Excellent? Sorry but it's utter bollocks to claim only those that want Brexit are on the extremes of politics.
He does not claim that at all. He simply points out that it is one of those cases where the far left and far right happen to agree on a policy goal, for entirely different reasons. If you are uncomfortable in the company of such people, perhaps you should think about why they are all there with you.
Brexit has replaced the UK’s stiff upper lip with quivering rage
...
The most fascinating feature of the debate is that the far left and far right agree against the centre. They may agree on little else. But they concur that the EU is a conspiracy against parliamentary sovereignty — against the right of a temporary parliamentary majority to do as it pleases with the people. For a leftwing socialist, the aim is to create a socialist paradise. For a rightwing free-marketeer, it is to create a capitalist one. Either way, the EU is the enemy....
...How will this end? The answer is that anything is possible. Could there still be a “no-deal Brexit”? Yes. Could there be another referendum? Yes. But the likelihood is that the UK will exit on terms laid down, in detail, by the EU. When a country is this divided and its political processes are in such disarray, someone else has to sort things out. The EU will do so, because that is in its interests.
The EU will not let the UK have its cake and eat it. It is led by people who also have a historical goal: not to return to the past. Their history was not British history and their aims are not British aims. They will determine the terms of the separation. We will then see whether the UK’s civil war is resolved, or renewed in other, yet more bitter, ways.
Excellent? Sorry but it's utter bollocks to claim only those that want Brexit are on the extremes of politics.
He does not claim that at all. He simply points out that it is one of those cases where the far left and far right happen to agree on a policy goal, for entirely different reasons. If you are uncomfortable in the company of such people, perhaps you should think about why they are all there with you.
I have not cut and pasted the whole article, btw.
Is that because the article suggests the 'negotiations' with the EU are not worth the candle? The 'negotiations are a long drawn out, humiliating attempt by the Remain and soft Brexit majority in the Tory Government to find a way of staying in the EU under a different name. They do not have the political courage or conviction to face down either the 52% or the EU. (I include Johnson and Gove in this by the way.) That is why they are so paralysed and increasingly ridiculous.
Brexit has replaced the UK’s stiff upper lip with quivering rage
...
The most fascinating feature of the debate is that the far left and far right agree against the centre. They may agree on little else. But they concur that the EU is a conspiracy against parliamentary sovereignty — against the right of a temporary parliamentary majority to do as it pleases with the people. For a leftwing socialist, the aim is to create a socialist paradise. For a rightwing free-marketeer, it is to create a capitalist one. Either way, the EU is the enemy....
...How will this end? The answer is that anything is possible. Could there still be a “no-deal Brexit”? Yes. Could there be another referendum? Yes. But the likelihood is that the UK will exit on terms laid down, in detail, by the EU. When a country is this divided and its political processes are in such disarray, someone else has to sort things out. The EU will do so, because that is in its interests.
The EU will not let the UK have its cake and eat it. It is led by people who also have a historical goal: not to return to the past. Their history was not British history and their aims are not British aims. They will determine the terms of the separation. We will then see whether the UK’s civil war is resolved, or renewed in other, yet more bitter, ways.
Excellent? Sorry but it's utter bollocks to claim only those that want Brexit are on the extremes of politics.
Well said and bollocks sums it up perfectly. Stick around, by midnight we will have another irish border question.
Brexit has replaced the UK’s stiff upper lip with quivering rage
...
The most fascinating feature of the debate is that the far left and far right agree against the centre. They may agree on little else. But they concur that the EU is a conspiracy against parliamentary sovereignty — against the right of a temporary parliamentary majority to do as it pleases with the people. For a leftwing socialist, the aim is to create a socialist paradise. For a rightwing free-marketeer, it is to create a capitalist one. Either way, the EU is the enemy....
...How will this end? The answer is that anything is possible. Could there still be a “no-deal Brexit”? Yes. Could there be another referendum? Yes. But the likelihood is that the UK will exit on terms laid down, in detail, by the EU. When a country is this divided and its political processes are in such disarray, someone else has to sort things out. The EU will do so, because that is in its interests.
The EU will not let the UK have its cake and eat it. It is led by people who also have a historical goal: not to return to the past. Their history was not British history and their aims are not British aims. They will determine the terms of the separation. We will then see whether the UK’s civil war is resolved, or renewed in other, yet more bitter, ways.
Excellent? Sorry but it's utter bollocks to claim only those that want Brexit are on the extremes of politics.
He does not claim that at all. He simply points out that it is one of those cases where the far left and far right happen to agree on a policy goal, for entirely different reasons. If you are uncomfortable in the company of such people, perhaps you should think about why they are all there with you.
I have not cut and pasted the whole article, btw.
Ok, perhaps only sharing part of the article allows me to read that into it?
My point is that dislike of the EU has nothing to do with party politics, left or right. There are many reasons to like or dislike it, therefore people from all backgrounds and political leanings will have similar thoughts for or against.
There are likely to be just as many people who's politics and morals I like who support the EU as those I dislike that oppose it. That has no influence on my thinking about the EU either way.
We are never going to agree on the principal of the merits of the EU but I am sure that we might well agree on many other matters in politics, life and Charlton.
This is an interesting article, which ends with a devastating question: "How did a cautious and conservative investment manager become the most reckless person on the planet?"
I sympathise with those who have an expectation Brexit will deliver value to the UK but trust the argument will never fall to a common denominator of "nobody likes us, we don't care". It is not a legacy to pass to future generations.
I can embrace tangential thinking as an element of problem solving but it can deliver little if there is no consensus in Cabinet, Parliament or the country in defining Brexit. If you can't define it how can you deliver it?
I offerred the need for a belief system to support our EU departure as there is so little substance to any HMG Brexit benchmarks but Dippenhall offers a good argument in referencing a religious analogy. In fact it is "the gorilla" in the room.
There have been many fine words from a number of EU politicos about trade with a post Brexit UK but until a framework is in place such words mean little. Today the CU is the governing framework.
"Default" templates present their own challenges so proclaiming our CU departure rips up the rule book. To talk of an, as yet, unspecified bespoke arrangement presents a vacuum in which few businesses can function.
To Len's point the inertia is palpable. HMG has to offer traction in a defined direction. In truth the time for "the rubber to hit the road" has passed. Trying to focus on the trade deals without an agreed framework is the definition of "not being able to see the wood for the trees". It is unworkable.
The religious analogy still best categorises our path as no more than a matter of faith over substance.
I like the positioning of the Church of the EU. However an argument asserting the religious disciplines of the EU are false gods to the pursuit of fair trade while offering no substance to any beliefs in a new God or any compelling rationale for any EU believer to engage in a mutually beneficial dialogue still lacks credibility.
To many, it is common sense for all parties to sit round the table to talk mutually beneficial trade. They are right. It is. The challenge comes with the conditions attached to such trade - the freedom of movement of goods and people. To the many such conditions are just "strings" attached to a commercial activity.
To the EU they are the canons of a church which binds 27 communities. It is a matter of unity. Of course 27 nations are going to squabble, argue, debate, bitch, whinge, complain and compete but ultimately most understand the need for the strength of unity the EU provides.l
Are its institutions flawed? Absolutely but it is not unique to the EU. Have we not seen enough flaws in our own Parliament? You think our unelected 2nd chamber appointed by political favour is a beacon of democracy? Have you viewed the political challenges of the US?
In conducting international negotiations there is one primary discipline. You assume nothing. You check & recheck you are not only on the same page, or at least reading the same chapter but actually using the same book. We give the impression we are still squabbling over our Library ticket.
As a consequence I fear negotiations will always fall between the stools of two different positions.
Unless the UK in concluding trade negotiations pays either "material respect" to the fundamental "freedom of movement" canon of the Church of the EU or a "significant premium" in compensation the pursuit of any "preferred status" will be seen as a direct challenge to its religious/ political ideology.
It is an ideology the EU can but defend to the hilt.
If you ask anybody in the EU if they want trade with the UK the answer will be yes. If you ask if they want trade with the U.K. without freedom of movement of goods, services and people they will ask how it will work. We have no answer.
EU countries will not and cannot cede freedoms & advantages to a "competitor" they themselves cannot enjoy in their own market. It would distort the market for all of their own manufacturers, service providers and financial institutions. If any party were granted the benefits of the community without embracing the associated disciplines, why would anybody bother remaining in the community?
Our commercial freedom extends into threatening an ideology. It will draw an ideological response.
We are entitled not to agree with it but 27 other nations, in principle, do. If no deal can be reached the EU will be inclined/ encouraged to take the pain "in the spirit of unity". The consequences will be laid squarely with the "reckless" U.K.
The status quo is the EU. Brexit is ultimately a very large storm in "our" teacup.
We have every right to be agents of change in as far as it serves our new beliefs but there is no compunction for our former "church" to engage with us beyond our meeting the commitments we pledged whilst part of their community.
You may well argue it is in their interests. They will concede there is value to such argument but NOT at the risk of breaching the unity of their church. There is no bluff here.
Germany holds the keys and the purse things. It is scrupulously pedantic in the pursuit of the "right" path. Germans are frustratingly magnificent in their attention to detail and in their patience in getting it "right". The Merkel "humanitarian brainfart" over the refugee crisis whilst understandable was an exception which will strengthen their resolve not to do it again!
West Germany took a huge financial hit over a protracted period in reuniting with East Germany because it was undeniably the right thing to do. For them preserving/ protecting the canons of the EU is the right thing to do.
It will be the first line on every EU negotiators crib sheet.
German industry will have long studied modifications to the UK market to balance their exposure by exploiting "in market" opportunities offerred by the tariffs to be imposed on UK manufactured goods. It is risk management.
They will look to make up any shortfall in targeting the emerging & developing "in market" opportunities within Eastern Europe knowing a primary competitor (the UK) will now be trading at a disadvantage while taking the EU, in time, collectively to the same markets the UK seeks to individually penetrate.
Will they trade with the U.K.? Absolutely but, financial services aside, on their terms and in their own good time. Will they experience "bumps along the way"? Without doubt, but the blame will only be attributed to a self serving UK. Is that fair? About as fair as the U.K. blaming all its ills on the E.U.
They will argue if we wish to seek a new relationship it is for us to define what we want and how it will work. We have failed to deliver to such requirement. They are not in the business of spending any time in second guessing our intentions.
As with most religions they will respect "our wish to go with our God" but that does not mean they will have any interest in furthering the interests of our church, over the interests and unity of their Church.
The rules of disengagement are defined within the EU bible we signed up to. The EU is following the rules. We created this situation. We have the right and have chosen to put our interests beyond those of a broader European community. The challenges are for us to resolve. The time for prevarication is past.
We're the problems always likely to be insurmountable? Yes but HMG is accountable to Parliament. The lack of clarity on the Irish border, on any future border controls, on EU citizens rights, on future trade negotiations each present a topic for a vote of no confidence.
If there is no intent to secure a deal then say so. Parliament and the people will have their say but to walk away with no deal because HMG has no answers is a matter of no confidence in itself.
May, Davis, Johnson, Rees Mogg et al need to be called to account. Sitting on the sidelines is no longer an option for any politician.
The government has failed. The question is will Parliament.
Apologies - you are right - I have always used the wrong descriptor since taking my banking exams and learning the "cannons of lending". I blame my night school tutor whose initial study papers were inappropriately titled. I will edit.
This is an interesting article, which ends with a devastating question: "How did a cautious and conservative investment manager become the most reckless person on the planet?"
Charlton Life, it's like a free Sunday paper. Thanks Grapevine. This is the key part for me: EU countries will not and cannot cede freedoms & advantages to a "competitor" they themselves cannot enjoy in their own market. It would distort the market for all of their own manufacturers, service providers and financial institutions. If any party were granted the benefits of the community without embracing the associated disciplines, why would anybody bother remaining in the community? It is the matter-of-fact wall that the blindly optimistic are running headlong into.
Don't get the EU = Religion analogy at all. It is completely ridiculous. The EU is the antithesis of Religion.
On the other hand I can see an analogy between Brexit and religion because both are based on blind faith and both reject all fact based evidence that does not support their view.
Comments
I'm a remainer but I also believe in the Union (so long as the people of the four countries want it), in this regard we cannot allow for Northern Ireland to be treated any differently to Surrey, they are both indivisible British territory.
The only actual options are:
No Brexit (no chance)
Brexit, Norway style (the sensible option)
Brexit full monty (years of reduced financial growth, ultimately for no financial gain but we get blue passports)
Seriously I anticipate a situation where people call for the entire world population to be microchipped in the ear lobe or something. Technology is not going to be the solution here, trust me.
Brexit has replaced the UK’s stiff upper lip with quivering rage
...
The most fascinating feature of the debate is that the far left and far right agree against the centre. They may agree on little else. But they concur that the EU is a conspiracy against parliamentary sovereignty — against the right of a temporary parliamentary majority to do as it pleases with the people. For a leftwing socialist, the aim is to create a socialist paradise. For a rightwing free-marketeer, it is to create a capitalist one. Either way, the EU is the enemy....
...How will this end? The answer is that anything is possible. Could there still be a “no-deal Brexit”? Yes. Could there be another referendum? Yes. But the likelihood is that the UK will exit on terms laid down, in detail, by the EU. When a country is this divided and its political processes are in such disarray, someone else has to sort things out. The EU will do so, because that is in its interests.
The EU will not let the UK have its cake and eat it. It is led by people who also have a historical goal: not to return to the past. Their history was not British history and their aims are not British aims. They will determine the terms of the separation. We will then see whether the UK’s civil war is resolved, or renewed in other, yet more bitter, ways.
I have not cut and pasted the whole article, btw.
He does not claim that at all. He simply points out that it is one of those cases where the far left and far right happen to agree on a policy goal, for entirely different reasons. If you are uncomfortable in the company of such people, perhaps you should think about why they are all there with you.I have not cut and pasted the whole article, btw.
Is that because the article suggests the 'negotiations' with the EU are not worth the candle? The 'negotiations are a long drawn out, humiliating attempt by the Remain and soft Brexit majority in the Tory Government to find a way of staying in the EU under a different name. They do not have the political courage or conviction to face down either the 52% or the EU. (I include Johnson and Gove in this by the way.) That is why they are so paralysed and increasingly ridiculous.
My point is that dislike of the EU has nothing to do with party politics, left or right. There are many reasons to like or dislike it, therefore people from all backgrounds and political leanings will have similar thoughts for or against.
There are likely to be just as many people who's politics and morals I like who support the EU as those I dislike that oppose it. That has no influence on my thinking about the EU either way.
We are never going to agree on the principal of the merits of the EU but I am sure that we might well agree on many other matters in politics, life and Charlton.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/02/09/the-mystery-of-jacob-rees-moggs-recklessness/#141f57b448ca
This is an interesting article, which ends with a devastating question: "How did a cautious and conservative investment manager become the most reckless person on the planet?"
I can embrace tangential thinking as an element of problem solving but it can deliver little if there is no consensus in Cabinet, Parliament or the country in defining Brexit. If you can't define it how can you deliver it?
I offerred the need for a belief system to support our EU departure as there is so little substance to any HMG Brexit benchmarks but Dippenhall offers a good argument in referencing a religious analogy. In fact it is "the gorilla" in the room.
There have been many fine words from a number of EU politicos about trade with a post Brexit UK but until a framework is in place such words mean little. Today the CU is the governing framework.
"Default" templates present their own challenges so proclaiming our CU departure rips up the rule book. To talk of an, as yet, unspecified bespoke arrangement presents a vacuum in which few businesses can function.
To Len's point the inertia is palpable. HMG has to offer traction in a defined direction. In truth the time for "the rubber to hit the road" has passed. Trying to focus on the trade deals without an agreed framework is the definition of "not being able to see the wood for the trees". It is unworkable.
The religious analogy still best categorises our path as no more than a matter of faith over substance.
I like the positioning of the Church of the EU. However an argument asserting the religious disciplines of the EU are false gods to the pursuit of fair trade while offering no substance to any beliefs in a new God or any compelling rationale for any EU believer to engage in a mutually beneficial dialogue still lacks credibility.
To many, it is common sense for all parties to sit round the table to talk mutually beneficial trade. They are right. It is. The challenge comes with the conditions attached to such trade - the freedom of movement of goods and people. To the many such conditions are just "strings" attached to a commercial activity.
To the EU they are the canons of a church which binds 27 communities. It is a matter of unity. Of course 27 nations are going to squabble, argue, debate, bitch, whinge, complain and compete but ultimately most understand the need for the strength of unity the EU provides.l
Are its institutions flawed? Absolutely but it is not unique to the EU. Have we not seen enough flaws in our own Parliament? You think our unelected 2nd chamber appointed by political favour is a beacon of democracy? Have you viewed the political challenges of the US?
In conducting international negotiations there is one primary discipline. You assume nothing. You check & recheck you are not only on the same page, or at least reading the same chapter but actually using the same book. We give the impression we are still squabbling over our Library ticket.
As a consequence I fear negotiations will always fall between the stools of two different positions.
Unless the UK in concluding trade negotiations pays either "material respect" to the fundamental "freedom of movement" canon of the Church of the EU or a "significant premium" in compensation the pursuit of any "preferred status" will be seen as a direct challenge to its religious/ political ideology.
It is an ideology the EU can but defend to the hilt.
If you ask anybody in the EU if they want trade with the UK the answer will be yes. If you ask if they want trade with the U.K. without freedom of movement of goods, services and people they will ask how it will work. We have no answer.
EU countries will not and cannot cede freedoms & advantages to a "competitor" they themselves cannot enjoy in their own market. It would distort the market for all of their own manufacturers, service providers and financial institutions. If any party were granted the benefits of the community without embracing the associated disciplines, why would anybody bother remaining in the community?
Our commercial freedom extends into threatening an ideology. It will draw an ideological response.
We are entitled not to agree with it but 27 other nations, in principle, do. If no deal can be reached the EU will be inclined/ encouraged to take the pain "in the spirit of unity". The consequences will be laid squarely with the "reckless" U.K.
The status quo is the EU. Brexit is ultimately a very large storm in "our" teacup.
We have every right to be agents of change in as far as it serves our new beliefs but there is no compunction for our former "church" to engage with us beyond our meeting the commitments we pledged whilst part of their community.
You may well argue it is in their interests. They will concede there is value to such argument but NOT at the risk of breaching the unity of their church. There is no bluff here.
Germany holds the keys and the purse things. It is scrupulously pedantic in the pursuit of the "right" path. Germans are frustratingly magnificent in their attention to detail and in their patience in getting it "right". The Merkel "humanitarian brainfart" over the refugee crisis whilst understandable was an exception which will strengthen their resolve not to do it again!
West Germany took a huge financial hit over a protracted period in reuniting with East Germany because it was undeniably the right thing to do. For them preserving/ protecting the canons of the EU is the right thing to do.
It will be the first line on every EU negotiators crib sheet.
German industry will have long studied modifications to the UK market to balance their exposure by exploiting "in market" opportunities offerred by the tariffs to be imposed on UK manufactured goods. It is risk management.
They will look to make up any shortfall in targeting the emerging & developing "in market" opportunities within Eastern Europe knowing a primary competitor (the UK) will now be trading at a disadvantage while taking the EU, in time, collectively to the same markets the UK seeks to individually penetrate.
Will they trade with the U.K.? Absolutely but, financial services aside, on their terms and in their own good time. Will they experience "bumps along the way"? Without doubt, but the blame will only be attributed to a self serving UK. Is that fair? About as fair as the U.K. blaming all its ills on the E.U.
They will argue if we wish to seek a new relationship it is for us to define what we want and how it will work. We have failed to deliver to such requirement. They are not in the business of spending any time in second guessing our intentions.
As with most religions they will respect "our wish to go with our God" but that does not mean they will have any interest in furthering the interests of our church, over the interests and unity of their Church.
The rules of disengagement are defined within the EU bible we signed up to. The EU is following the rules. We created this situation. We have the right and have chosen to put our interests beyond those of a broader European community. The challenges are for us to resolve. The time for prevarication is past.
We're the problems always likely to be insurmountable? Yes but HMG is accountable to Parliament. The lack of clarity on the Irish border, on any future border controls, on EU citizens rights, on future trade negotiations each present a topic for a vote of no confidence.
If there is no intent to secure a deal then say so. Parliament and the people will have their say but to walk away with no deal because HMG has no answers is a matter of no confidence in itself.
May, Davis, Johnson, Rees Mogg et al need to be called to account. Sitting on the sidelines is no longer an option for any politician.
The government has failed. The question is will Parliament.
It is the matter-of-fact wall that the blindly optimistic are running headlong into.
On the other hand I can see an analogy between Brexit and religion because both are based on blind faith and both reject all fact based evidence that does not support their view.