A photo of this letter has been circulating on the internet, if true it would be a massive deal for the region.

"So markets are markets and bacon still have to be sold and the EU countries who sell it can´t just find another place to sell it."

"Also, UK have the world to deal with, they can make deals with Canada, Mexico, China, US or anyone else on their terms which can be far better than anything the EU could do."

So, EU countries won't find anywhere to sell their products that they used to sell to the UK, but the UK will have absolutely no problem whatsoever to find new places to sell their products? Why would that be the case? Also, why on god's green earth would countries like the US and China give the UK a better deal than they give the EU? The EU market dwarfs the UK market, if anything they are gonna give the UK a shit deal because they know they are desperate for any deal. Sorry but you're talking utter nonsense.

'What you said about the chaos at the tunnel supports my point of food and medicine shortages lol, where do you think the UK gets their food and medicine from?

You;re the one who misread the report it seems. They could only lose as little as 0.1% in the even of an EEA type scenario. Actually, I did misread the report as well. In a no deal brexit (wto) scenario, they estimate that they 5% - 11/12% of their GDP. Look at page 17 of the report, the one that's in the black box with the letters HMG is the government's assassment. HMG stand for Her Majesty's Government.

Not only the EU has to set up customs you know, the UK has to as well. And they are woefully unprepared.

So no, the UK definately has more to lose than the EU. I also never said the EU is one big country, but the UK is going up against 27 different countries. All of those countries will lose a lot of trade with 1 country. The UK is going to lose a lot of trade with 27 countries. Tell me, what hurts more? Surely even you can't deny the obvious fact that losing a lot of trade with 27 countries is significantly worse than losing a lot of trade with 1 country?

As for your point about the budget, yes it will hurt a bit but it's nothing the EU can't handle. If I take the budget for 2019 as an example, that is €165.8 billion. 14% of that would be €23.2 billion. On average EU countries will have to pay about €859 million more every year, hardly anything that would cause serious trouble.

Yes, and the UK stands to lose about 50% of all their trade with 27 different nations, which adds up to about 25% of the entire UK's trade.

You don't even need to ask "the experts", the UK government's own assassment said that their GDP could shrink up to 9% in the event of no deal. And that is just the financial aspect of it. Food and medicine shortages are a really big concer as well.

It is within the EU's interest to secure a deal, yes, which is the one Theresa May presented to commons, and it got voted down by a very large majority. It is not, however, within it's interests to compromise the single market in order to secure this deal. The germany chamber of commerce has already come out and said that they prefer to have not extention made on article 50. Furthermore, the EU economy is many times larger than the UK's, so even if the EU loses more money in absolutely terms, if you look at it relative to the sizes of their economies, the UK stands to lose far more than the EU.

Which industries will flourish according to you? Also, did you know that the UK was already able to curb immigration if they wanted to? They just chose not to do it. They haven't curbed immigration from countries outside of the EU, which they have full control over, and they also haven't curbed immigration from EU countries, which they have some control over. A lot of people seem to think that EU citizens can just go to the UK and sit on their ass and collect a welfare check, but that is not how that works. If an EU citizen wants to move to another EU country, they need to find a job within 3 months, otherwise the EU country they moved to has every right to deport them back to their own country. So no, EU citizens can't just come to the UK and drain their social services.

The reason politicians don't want to just leave with no deal is because doing so would be catastrophic for their economy. Besides, the vote was on if they should leave, not in which manner or when. There is really no reason to believe that just because a majority support leaving that they also support leaving in any way possible, I'd wager most leave voters want some kind of deal to be made.

Source

MPs voted by 432 votes to 202 to reject the deal, which sets out the terms of Britain's exit from the EU on 29 March.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has now tabled a vote of no confidence in the government, which could trigger a general election.

The confidence vote is expected to be held at about 1900 GMT on Wednesday.

The defeat is a huge blow for Mrs May, who has spent more than two years hammering out a deal with the EU.

The plan was aimed at bringing about an orderly departure from the EU on 29 March, and setting up a 21-month transition period to negotiate a free trade deal.

The vote was originally due to take place in December, but Mrs May delayed it to try and win the support of more MPs.

The UK is still on course to leave on 29 March but the defeat throws the manner of that departure - and the timing of it - into further doubt.

MPs who want either a further referendum, a softer version of the Brexit proposed by Mrs May, to stop Brexit altogether or to leave without a deal, will ramp up their efforts to get what they want, as a weakened PM offered to listen to their arguments.

Laura Kuenssberg: May's nightmare

History was made tonight with the scale of this defeat - a higher figure than the wildest of numbers that were gossiped about before the vote.

But the prime minister's dilemma is a more serious version of the same it's always been.

She has no majority of her own in Parliament to make her middle way through stick. And her many critics don't agree on the direction she should take - a more dramatic break with the EU, or a tighter, softer version.

Those two fundamental and clashing positions have always threatened to pull her and the government apart.

The Brexit debate has cut across traditional party lines.

Some 118 Conservative MPs - from both the Leave and Remain wings of her party - voted with the opposition parties against Mrs May's deal.

And three Labour MPs supported the prime minister's deal: Ian Austin (Dudley North), Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) and John Mann (Bassetlaw).

The most controversial sticking point was the issue of the Northern Irish backstop - the fallback plan to avoid any return to physical border checks between the country and Ireland.

Mrs May had hoped new assurances from EU leaders this week, saying the backstop would be temporary and, if triggered, would last for "the shortest possible period", would help her garner more support.

But in the debate leading up to the vote, members from all sides of the House said the move did not go far enough.

In normal times, such a crushing defeat on a key piece of government legislation would be expected to be followed by a prime ministerial resignation.

But Mrs May signalled her intention to carry on in a statement immediately after the vote.

"The House has spoken and this government will listen," she told MPs.

She offered cross-party talks to determine a way forward on Brexit, if she succeeded in winning the confidence vote.

Former foreign secretary and leading Brexiteer Boris Johnson said it was a "bigger defeat than people have been expecting" - and it meant Mrs May's deal was now "dead".

But he said it gave the prime minister a "massive mandate to go back to Brussels" to negotiate a better deal, without the controversial Northern Ireland backstop.

And he said he would back Mrs May in Wednesday's confidence vote.

Labour MP Chuka Umunna said that if his leader did not secure a general election, Mr Corbyn should do what the "overwhelming majority" of Labour members want and get behind a further EU referendum.

Lib Dem leader Sir Vince Cable, who also wants a second referendum, said Mrs May's defeat was "the beginning of the end of Brexit" - but conceded that campaigners would not get one without Mr Corbyn's backing.

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said Mrs May had suffered "a defeat of historic proportions" and called again for the Article 50 "clock to be stopped" in order for another referendum to take place.

"We have reached the point now where it would be unconscionable to kick the can any further down the road," she said.

However, government minister Rory Stewart said there was no majority in the Commons for any Brexit plan, including another referendum.

How a confidence motion works

By the BBC's head of political research Peter Barnes

Under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, UK general elections are only supposed to happen every five years. The next one is due in 2022.

But a vote of no confidence lets MPs decide on whether they want the government to continue. The motion must be worded: "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government."

If a majority of MPs vote for the motion then it starts a 14-day countdown.

If during that time the current government, or any other alternative government cannot win a new vote of confidence, then an early general election would be called.

That election cannot happen for at least 25 working days.

MPs are set to debate Labour's no confidence motion for about six hours following Prime Minister's Questions at 1200.

Mr Corbyn said it would allow the House of Commons to "give its verdict on the sheer incompetence of this government".

But DUP leader Arlene Foster said her party, which keeps Mrs May in power, would be supporting her in Wednesday's confidence vote.

She told the BBC MPs had "acted in the best interests of the entire United Kingdom" by voting down the deal.

But she added: "We will give the government the space to set out a plan to secure a better deal."

n her statement to MPs, Mrs May said she planned to return to the Commons next Monday with an alternative plan - if she survives the confidence vote.

She said she would explore any ideas from cross-party talks with the EU, but she remained committed to delivering on the result of the 2016 referendum.

But European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said the risk of a disorderly Brexit had increased as a result of the deal being voted down.

He said the agreement was "the only way to ensure an orderly withdrawal" and that he and President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, had "demonstrated goodwill" with additional clarifications this week to put MPs minds at rest.

"I urge the United Kingdom to clarify its intentions as soon as possible," he said. "Time is almost up."

Mr Tusk said he regretted the outcome of the vote and later tweeted to ask "who will finally have the courage to say what the only positive solution is?"

A statement from the Irish government also said it regretted the decision and that it "continues to believe that ratification of this agreement is the best way to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the UK".

It also said it will "continue to intensify preparations" for a no deal Brexit.

After this humiliating defeat, that leaves the question of what happens next? It seems like there are few options left. Crashing out of the EU with no deal is one of them, but that seems to be by far the least desired of all outcomes, afaik only the extreme brexiteers want this. Other than that the only way to get a different deal is if Theresa May adjusts her red lines, but that also seems unlikely as she will likely lose support with a lot of her party members if she caves on FoM for example. A third option could be a second referendum to see if people still want to go ahead with Brexit. A fourth option could be a general election, but I'm not sure if there's enough time for this as the UK will officially leave the EU on 29/03, and the clock keeps ticking.

All in all this looks like a giant shitshow, and it seems no one has the slightest clue on what will happen next.

But that's not what you said. You said gas prices were $2.19, that is factually wrong. For all your talk about how easy it would be for me to look this up I haven't seen you provide a single source thats says the average gas price in the US is $2.19. The only source you provided actually refutes your claim about the gas price, which you admitted to in your previous post, so I'm not sure why you're now trying to deny this again.

I haven't said a single thing about whether these gas prices were low or not, or whether trump deserves credit for them or not. Stop putting words in my mouth. I simply called you out for not sourcing your claims, and afterwards trying to tell me that it's just common knowledge even though the numbers were clearly wrong.