NY wrote
dennis@home wrote

They do show a majority of brexiteers that would support no deal if the
EU was the one causing the problems, which it isn't.

That point of view is debatable. If the EU and the UK can't reach an
agreement on a deal which is acceptable to UK MPs, is the fault a) the
EU's, b) the UK's, c) both the EU's and the UK's. I'd go for option c):
*both* sides need to give ground if they are to reach a compromise, and be
prepared to abandon entrenched positions or restrictive rules of
engagement.

Trouble is that the irish border is a real problem for that, particularly
if you believe that a hard border there would see the stupid irish
blowing each other up again. I dont believe that, but clearly some do.

And its not hard to see why the EU doesnt want no border controls
at all there with the UK out of the EU. But less clear why they arent
prepared to agree to the same arrangement between Denmark and
Greenland. Greenland isnt in the EU.

I hope we reach an *acceptable* deal by 31 October.

Cant see that happening given Barnier's recent article in
the Telegraph where he was completely intransigent about
the backstop unless thats just an ambit claim/bluff etc.

Failing that, I just want to get out of Europe and abandon the EU. I am
pig-sick of MPs stalling and preventing what was decided by the referendum
from taking place.

Is the EU willing to lose £39 billion in "divorce settlement" if the UK
leaves without a deal?

Boris has said that the UK will pay what it
owes, but in his usual style, hasnt made it
clear if he considers that to be £39B or even
if the meant that even with a no deal brexit.

Is the UK willing to live with the consequences of no deal?

The odds would have to be with that given the detail of
Article 50, but clearly lots hate the idea of a no deal brexit
and I believe that many of them honestly believe that it
would have bad economic consequences for the UK.

Which side will give in?

The UK doesnt have to give in to end up with a no deal brexit
but its hard to see the current parliament buying that.

Whose silly idea was it to change the rules about governments being able
to call general elections at a time of their choosing?

Fixed term parliaments have always been one of those fashion
things. The yanks have always had that approach and they arent
alone on that. And plenty of countrys have changed to fixed terms.

If the Conservatives are returned with a greater majority, I wonder if
that rule will be reversed

I dont recall any country changing back after going for fixed terms
but I have never researched that. Likely some banana republic etc
has. There doesnt appear to be a comprehensive wiki on that.

or at least changed to ignore anyone who abstains: the result of the vote
was 298 votes in favour of an election to 56 against, this was less than
the 2/3 of the *total* number of MPs.

Yeah, pretty poor drafting there.

In any election, those who abstain should be disregarded; not to do so is
to implicitly add their numbers to the losing side.