Now then, it's rather safe to assume that re-leavers would prefer a soft Brexit - something which arguably only the Lib Dems are campaigning for. The trouble with that of course is that the LDs look very unlikely to win, would prefer the whole thing to not go ahead anyway, and are also planning to negotiate based upon the idea that they could then hold a second referendum with an option to remain. They absolutely cannot guarantee that this choice is a possibility (more so now that the Irish Court case on the revocability of A50 has been abandoned), but also, like their EU counterparts, would have no clear incentive to negotiate a good deal under these circumstances. So overall their position seems broadly incoherent, and they are perhaps not as natural a home for re-leavers as they may seem, despite looking like the only option for hard remainers.
Labour then? Well this isn't that difficult. Labour's position is essentially this: We would do exactly what the Tories would do only for more noble reasons that make no sense when you think about them for a second and despite the fact that staying in the single market would address everything we purportedly want out of Brexit much more adequately. The main differential is that Labour do not think that no deal is better than a bad deal, although once again this would bring into question how they would negotiate. In terms of Brexit alone, I can't really figure out who they are trying to appeal to.
We all know what the conservatives plan is, detail aside, but the whole no deal is better than a bad deal thing is still their official policy. Whether they or anybody else actually believes it or not, it is in their manifesto. The audience applauded when May repeated this line during her interview with Jeremy Paxman last night, but even Theresa may is saying over and over again about how we need to make a success of the next 5 years or all sorts of bad things will happen, but the no deal line just doesn't sit alongside this. A slightly more coherent message would be something like: 'whilst we think no deal is better than a bad deal, no deal would be a failure'. Pete North as ever does a good of explaining why it is absolutely a bad idea, even if you think we should trade on WTO terms, purely because of the cliff edge it would entail. Many people also only think about trade when considering no deal, but what about everything else? No deal as the government means it is just walking away with nothing. It would mean in April 2019 a total severance of every legal form of cooperation we have, covering everything from our skies and travel policy, to maritime law, to energy, to legal frameworks, to financial transaction frameworks, to crime cooperation, to data sharing - everything. The cliff edge would be enormous, even if you think we could rebuild. Only some significant mental gymnastics can avoid this. No deal on trade? Okay, maybe we could overcome it, but no deal on anything whatsoever? It would be a disaster.
I think my overall point here is that every party can be shown to be handling this incoherently or ineptly in some way, and that I'm finding it hard to think of any individual's position on Brexit that aligns exactly with any of our main political parties. This is aside from the fact that there are many other things to consider in the election, and many other ways in which the parties are blurring lines. Political homelessness and despair must be at an all-time high right now, and it is difficult to see when things might get any better.
If I could finally ask you to check out our Brexit podcast, where more views than just my own are aired, and importantly leave us a review on iTunes and share with others. We're having a week off before the election but will be back with our immediate reactions days later.