Would no deal on Brexit be such a bad thing?

TWO letters caught my eye in last Thursday’s edition of your paper.

Political Gibberish from CPR Palfry, claims ‘no deal’ and a ‘bad deal’ on Brexit are ‘by definition … the same thing’. This is not the case. No deal will mean us leaving the EU to trade with the EU on WTO terms, as most of the rest of the world do. This effectively means an average tariff of a little over 2%. We will also no longer be required to pay the enormous EU membership fees, we’ll no longer be subject to the rulings of a court that has as part of its remit the promotion of the organisation whose rules and regulations it is supposed to pass judgement on. And furthermore we will be able to implement an immigration policy that will balance the needs of our economy with the added demands on infrastructure, public services and housing bought about by the sustained increase in population of the last two decades. On the other hand a bad deal will mean contin- ued payment of enormous fees, the payment of what will amount to be a fine for committing he heinous crime of upholding the result of a democratic referendum, continued subjection to the ECJ and the continued inability to control our own boarders.

Blurring the distinction between ‘ no deal’ and ‘bad deal’ however is just what the Remoaners want. It is now becoming apparent that their aim is to broker a bad deal and then present us with a referendum with the options; accept the bad deal or stay in the EU. If Mr Peter Riley is, as he claims in his letter Much Easier to say in the EU, a leave voter who now thinks staying in the EU is the better option, it seems the Remoaners are sadly having some success. I only the Government realise we are more likely to get a good deal if we are willing to show we are ready to accept no deal. John Knights By e-mail