I tend to think you're right on the Chequers plan. It seems clear that Parliament will not countenance a "no deal" Brexit on its own - this would need a referendum, purely because the economic consequence would be significant, as the Government's own modelling shows. Even a 4% hit to GDP (which is below the low-end of "no deal" modelling) would mean the mother of all recessions.

I see this going one of two ways:
- Mrs May survives and we end up with something very close indeed to EEA, possibly including Single Market.
- There is no viable deal, in which case Parliament offers a referendum with a binary choice: no deal or remaining in the EU.

Very good comment.

I received an eviction notice after asking the landlord to fix ceiling mould caused by inadequate ventilation (no vents in windows or walls due to fitting of the cheapest double glazing humanly imaginable in the property) and a washer-dryer that was listed as an inventory item (i.e. I was paying for it).

I got my entire deposit back, but only by threatening to go to arbitration, and being able to do without my deposit for several months - many people renting do not have the resources to do this.

Out of five landlords in my professional life - all over the past 15 years - one was excellent (could not fault him); two were OK and two were dreadful.

It is notable that the really excellent landlord owned a large number of properties and ran this as a proper business (e.g. rolling program of refurbishment of properties) while all of the others owned one or two properties, and tried to do everything "on the cheap" (why the surprise when a 15 year old washer-dryer stops working? The design life of those is about 7 years).

For the avoidance of doubt, rent was always paid in full on the day by direct debit (I'm more than well enough paid for rent not to be an issue), and in the once case where damages were due from me, I was more than happy to pay.

I have plenty of respect for the views of many of the pragmatic Brexiteers on CH. What has mostly lacked in the national conversation is a sense of honestly discussing the probable (no-one can know for sure) trade-offs as we leave - the type of discussion we are having now.

"Technology has got its foot in the door and unless Government starts up skilling the population that's going to adversely affect cohesion."

It has already impacted cohesion very significantly, and the Government is already too late - which is not to say that it shouldn't start running to catch up.

I'm an engineer specialising in cyber security for embedded devices. My skill-set is in global demand, and I will most likely be OK whatever happens (whether I end up living in the UK or not). I, and most like me, spend a great deal of time educating our kids that life is tough and you need to make sure you have skills that are in demand. They will probably also be OK.

One of the most negative traits of a section of British society is that it attaches little importance to education and to success in academic endeavours. This group has already been "left behind" by immigrant groups that value education and do better at school, and resents it without doing anything meaningful about it. Poor working class areas are often very badly served by schools that are little more than containment centres to keep kids off the street and which accept woeful levels of underachievement. We *have* to change this. It's such a waste of talent and potential.

I am not sure how you can help kids whose parents are barely literate and probably innumerate to succeed when other kids have parents who spend time daily teaching their children, but we have to try. I suspect that quite a bit more money, targeted mainly on the most under-achieving schools, is going to be needed. We also have to do more on adult education for those who are already left behind.

This should be far more of a priority than more for pensions or social care for the public purse because it is an investment in future tax revenue.

I used to live in Cirencester, and know the site well. Dyson properly understand the value of R&D and he has put his money where his mouth is on engineering training - something very few other companies have done. We need more like him.

There is a part of me which fully understands the attraction of a low-tax, deregulated Brexit. I know and admire Singapore very much, for example. However, few apart from Prof. Minford are prepared to admit that future benefits would come only at the cost of much of our manufacturing and farming industry. This will leave the working classes feeling even more alienated and angry, and I don't think it is the right call to make for reasons of future social cohesion.

I agree entirely that we need skilled R&D and tech jobs, but many working class voters who voted to leave are not competing for such jobs (there is a general shortage of R&D talent in the UK, and we rely on skilled migrants to address it).

We cannot afford to lose skilled jobs in high-tech manufacturing if we wish to successfully address the grievances of working class Leave voters.

Dyson had a point that the energy efficiency regulations are far from perfect, but when we look at things, it did not have anything like the impact on his business that he claimed at the time (after all, he makes good product).

Vote Leave was very successful in weaponising divisions - this is most likely a large part of how it won, especially with regard to migration.

Serious politicians, especially the Government, have totally failed to find any way to heal the division that was sown. It has been a total failure of political leadership.

We will be leaving on some basis or another - probably something close to this proposal. No-one will like it, but worse than that the division that Brexit has created will, I think, drag on our politics for several Parliaments to come.

There is one possible advantage of a second referendum, and that is if it can produce a genuinely decisive result. A 65% 35% vote would shut down any question that there was not broad acceptance.

However another very narrow victory - either way - would be an utter disaster. Depending on the question, and @JonathanF1234 covers the difficulty of this a few posts up, we are in fact in a place where the country remains split right down the middle, and very few have changed their minds. A narrow victory in either direction would lead to civil disobedience at least in such a case, I suspect.

My guess though is that a referendum on a soft-ish Brexit (BRINO, if you prefer) vs continuing to discuss the subject further would probably be won quite decisively. Not because it's a good idea, but because the nation at large is so utterly fed up with Brexit politics that it would accept almost deal that made the subject go away.

Notoriously he outsourced all of his manufacturing to Malaysia, with the loss of many good manufacturing jobs in the UK in consequence, and has campaigned against the EU since around the time of creating the regulations on energy efficiency (he was once so pro-EU he advocated the UK joining the Euro (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dyson#Pro-Eur....

"Pro-business" is a bit of a meaningless statement really. There than unreconstructed Communists (hint - far to the left even of John McDonald), everyone is pro-business. It just depends on which business you are "pro".

What's wrong with losing most manufacturing and a fair proportion of farming as Prof Minford, who has the advantage that he is at least honest about his preferred Brexit, says. We will have control of our borders and we will no longer be subject to the Common Fisheries Policy.

...and as any fule kno, the totality of our fisheries contribute less to the national economy than Harrods (source: FT, "May’s Brexit dividend and other myths worth exploding", 21st June 2018)