The problem with trying to threaten the EU with a no deal exit is it's like a bank robber threatening to blow his own head off - messy, undesirable, but ultimately not very persuasive.

It's mutually assured destruction. The EU doesn't want to lose billions of dollars in trade either.

I don't think the EU will be moved by this. They can easily wait till the UK exits without a deal then be in an even stronger negotiating position.

You understand the concept of 'mutual', right?

Like the bank robber, you seem to mistake a threat of self-harm by the UK for an existential threat to the EU. No deal is not mutually assured destruction, it's certain destruction for the UK and some damage to the EU.

That's not a very convincing lever in a negotiation. The final relationship will benefit the EU far more than the UK, simply because of the balance of power, regardless of delusions to the contrary and empty bombast from Johnson.

OK, you think the EU wants to deliberately damage itself, like your bank robber analogy. You're welcome to your opinion.

They'd be wrong.

A bill passed its 3rd reading in house of commons. It needs to get through the House of Lords. It still has some way before becoming law.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/common...

And when the UK crashes out of EU with no deal we'll inevitably re-allow free movement of EU workers because we have no bargaining power.

You're right. It needs to go through Lords. It will.

Regarding your last sentence: leaving no-deal off the table, and this being unable to walk away, would have meant we have no bargaining power.

> And when the UK crashes out of EU with no deal

It’s incredible how many times people have cried wolf about this.

If we have a deal that's going to include freedom of movement; if we don't have a deal we're going to be forced to include freedom of movement to get trading.

There's no version of the UK in 2022 that doesn't have freedom of movement for EU citizens.