If we believe in Anatole Kaletsky, there may be no Brexit at all. What makes him think about this eventuality is that Theresa May's government has agreed to maintain an open border between Ireland - a EU member - and Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK. She needs this compromise for Brexit talks to proceed,

The author says this "concession was a game changer," because the open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland has "forced May to abandon her promise to 'take back control' from the EU and its regulatory framework." During the December 7 summit she said: “In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation.”

There has been much argued about a "soft" and a "hard" Brexit. The author says "both scenarios".....can now be dismissed." May has no parliamentary majority for a “hard Brexit,” which would force Britain to ditch EU regulations and rely on World Trade Organisation rules to do business. EU-leaders will reject a “soft Brexit” because it would let Britain to "cherry-pick" the trade benefits of a EU member without honouring "political obligations."

What happens if both soft and hard Brexit are off the table? Britain might seek "some form of associate EU membership, similar to Norway," which is in the European Economic Area but outside the EU itself. Yet Oslo pays extravagantly for access to the single market, while "complying with EU rules and regulations, including free movement of labor, contributing to the EU budget, and accepting the jurisdiction of EU law." May has promised forging a “deep and special partnership” with the EU, but there is "almost no way" that Britain could avoid the "legal and budgetary conditions accepted by Norway and Switzerland."

She had "rejected all three of these conditions" before, while others - businesses, investors, and economists - welcome the Norwegian option, which they call "fake Brexit." However, for all the above obligations Britain "would no longer have any say." The author says, instead of being a "rule-maker," Britain with its glorious imperial past would just be a "rule-taker" - reducing Britain to a "vassal state" or a EU "colony" - to the dismay of English nationalists.

The author says this “Hotel California” scenario, in which “you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave,” would ultimately enrage both Brexiteers and Remainers. It takes them back to square one, "if a hard Brexit is economically unacceptable to British business and Parliament, a soft Brexit is politically unacceptable to EU leaders, and a fake Brexit is unacceptable to almost everyone." Thist leaves "ust one alternative: no Brexit."

Indeed, much could happen between now and "the treaty deadline of March 29, 2019." MPs may still have a chance to "abandon Brexit by revoking Britain’s withdrawal notice under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union." And this would probably have to be "ratified by another referendum."

But this can only happen when May’s government implodes, especially when Brexiteers refuse to accept the 'vassal state' conditions imposed by the EU during the transition period." In this case a "general election would almost certainly produce a Labour-led coalition based on a promise to 'think again' about Brexit."

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, one of May’s few remaining loyalists, "became the first senior Tory to admit publicly that Brexit might never happen if zealous Euroskeptics ever rebelled against May." The Eurosceptic Tories - fearing a Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn - would rather let May negotiate a “vassal state” transition, which is their nightmare of an "inescapable 'Hotel California,' based on the Norway model." It remains to be seen whether Brexit hardliners, obsesssed with sovereignty and nationalism would sack May rather than accepting Britain’s demotion to “vassal statehood.”