For those who say no deal is Project Fear, why?

[Deadsouls]

Just listening to radio 4 and A Tory minister (didn't catch name), said no deal would be 'difficult' but not a catastrophe as some have predicted. He was saying that it was nonsense and project fear to say it would disastrous for the UK.
But, the conflict of opinion is so confusing. Disaster/not a disaster, project fear/project reality.

So my question is to ppl who advocate no deal, why would it be better than deal or no Brexit?

It doesn’t JM90914, and I’m not in favour of no-deal by the way I just lose the will to live when people from both camps spout sound bites that are untrue. I shall go back to my hole

Because they have no answers which stand up to any scrutiny, so they need to dismiss it as Project Fear, otherwise they are wrong.

No dealer types are triggered by both analogies and being called stupid. Double trigger alert:

Some people think it's like whipping off a plaster, saying ow for a little bit and then getting on with the day.
Idiots.

@justabetterplayer

No, please don't - it wasn't an attack, or an assumption that you want no deal (apologies if it came across that way).

Just pointing out that the same bloke still talks about "catastrophe" even if he doesn't talk about running out of food.

I guess I'm firmly in the glass-half-empty, prepare for the worst, but hope for anything even slightly better camp, myself

I noticed someone said plans were underway to make sure planes were to keep on flying. That is not the case, here's what the EU have actually said....

twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1073363151230504961?s=19

2/2 Here's what the Commission actually said about aviation and no deal Brexit

• implicitly no follow on flights to further EU destinations
• safety certificates only valid for a limited period
• parts can only be used under certain circumstances
• airline ownership rules change t.co/h5nhwwyG5W

And this is because our aviation regulations are currently done through the EASA, which our membership of would immediately cease at 11pm on March 29. We have no mechanism of carrying out the certifications needed and won't have by March 29.

And on 1st October Ian Wright CBE, FDF Chief Executive said:

“It's all very well for Dominic Raab to decry scaremongering on a 'no-deal' Brexit, but just two months ago he was the one raising the possibility of stockpiling food and calling in the squaddies to help.

“The “lurid predictions” he mentions are from his own colleagues in DExEU. Their technical notices lay bare just how severe blockages at the ports would be for food coming in and out of our country. Indeed, the Government takes this so seriously that just last week it appointed a food supplies Minister. The last person to occupy such a position oversaw the end of rationing in 1954.

“We face grisly consequences if we do not secure a deal with the EU – it is not scaremongering, it is scary. We are already seeing food and drink prices rise in response to the threat of a 'no-deal' Brexit as businesses begin to stockpile and hedge currency risk. The Government must act quickly if it is to protect the interest of shoppers and consumers, who have come to expect year-round availability of high-quality food and drink at all price points.”

I'm so frustrated at the ill informed Brexiteers who spout WTO deal without having any idea what that actually means.

I'm almost starting to want us to drop out with no deal, just to prove once and for all what an unmitigated disaster it would be for the UK.

At least No deal would finish off the Tories for a generation and Rees mogg, Jonson, farage etc. would all get lynched by the betrayed Brexiteers who would finally wake up and realise they've been sold a bunch of lies and been tricked by rich twatty disaster Capitalists who play the money markets and are gambling Britain's future for their own selfish gains.

So many ppl invested in their positions, I'm not sure Disaster No Deal would finish off Tories. The BeLeavers will find someone else to blame instead.

Someone just now on R5 Phone in, declaring that the post-Brexit bad scenarios from govt were all produced under Remainer politicians (eg., Osborne) so politically biased. I couldn't stomach listening so turned it off; I hope the guest Expert pointed out Davis & Raab were heads of DXEU that produced the reports. That's where we are now, though. Some people very determined to have no faith in our institutions, enthusiastically embracing anti-establishment views.

It's interesting how people can read the self same reports and come to completely different conclusions.

Up thread Lonelyplanet linked a report about the forces being brought in to help to back up Havanna's assertion that we would see troops on the streets. Having read the piece I can see that the government are using strategists within the military to help plan for possible disruption to supplies etc. were there a no Brexit. Perfectly sensible I would think but a far cry from the suggestion that we were going to have troops on the streets.

The other link that has been used is the one about disruption to aviation. First of all the first paragraph states that the commission was presupposing that operators would not have made necessary and alternative arrangements. Obviously the operators are going to ensure where ever possible that they have made alternative arrangements. Another paragraph states that the commission will propose measures that ensure that UK carriers are allowed to fly over the EU. So I can't see anywhere where it says that we or they will not be able to fly in , out or over each other's countries. Ryanair - one of the biggest carriers in the world is an EU company and very reliant on the UK for it's business so I doubt they will cut their noses off to spite their faces.

I would be very surprised if businesses were not looking at how they could mitigate any disruption - resourcing their ingredients within the UK where possible, changing their menus to using more seasonal products etc. I personally don't think it would be a bad thing if we really had to rethink about what we eat and when. The carbon foot print of so many of our food stuffs is astronomical.
If there is a no Brexit then we will know about it in advance, unlike sudden changes in the weather or unknown shortages which are exacerbated by everyone running off to buy the last loaf.

I think we should look at what happened in New Zealand after we joined the common market. We had to shut off their largest market so they had to completely rethink their economic model and are now very successful.

At the end of the day I certainly don't want a no deal situation but I don't want anyone to take it off the table otherwise where will any negotiations go. We must have this as a 'back stop'.

Doubletrouble, I quoted the text about airline regulations. The guy I quoted on the tweet is a professor of EU, human rights and world trade law. Here he says....

implicitly no follow on flights to further EU destinations

• safety certificates only valid for a limited period
• parts can only be used under certain circumstances
• airline ownership rules change

This is the problem.

GD12 - I read the text about airline regulations and I disagree with the Professor in his interpretation. The problem is, I suspect that this professor has a remain bias as many who give predictions do. Most of the civil service I would suggest are remainers as are the MPs in the commons which is a major problem when they are charged to enact something they don't believe in.
Again I would say read what the commission wrote. They most certainly did not say that there would be no follow on flights to further EU destinations.

Our 'religion' as academics is to use our expertise without bias. We don't decide first what we believe and then choose what to say. It's the other way around. We use our expertise to decide what the evidence means before making up our minds what to advise, and always be open to changing minds with emergence of new evidence.

Classic example of populist movement undermining institutions. What Dt99 is saying is that if the professor said something Dt99 liked, that professor wouldn't have bias. Ditto civil servants.

@doubletrouble

You want to leave “no deal” on the table as a means of negotiating - as in, you think the UK should be threatening its closest allies with economic turmoil?

Is that the basis on which productive friendly future relationships are built?

The EU just signed a free trade deal with Japan. It’s notable, being the “largest” in history (whatever largest means).

Did threats form any part of that negotiating process, over the 5 years it took?

I’m genuinely asking. I’ve no idea. But I’ll admit that I sincerely doubt it.

I think the whole thing is being undermined by the various parliamentary groups fighting for the what they want - mostly to remain with not a care in the world for the country, they just want to 'win' and get into into power as the Cons will possibly fall apart on a remain decision.

What Dt99 is saying is that if the professor said something Dt99 liked, that professor wouldn't have bias. Ditto civil servants.

Exactly this.

Well, this is straight from the EASA.

Validation of certificates for a limited amount of time.
Parts may be used under certain circumstances.

Kind of a big deal.

I think we should look at what happened in New Zealand after we joined the common market. We had to shut off their largest market so they had to completely rethink their economic model and are now very successful

They had 12 years to prepare, a 5 year transitional period, signed a FTA with Australia in '65 and have massively benefited from the huge growth in China and Asian countries too, by 1973 less than 25% of NZ total exports went to the UK.
They also switched from sheep to diary and tourism, with the environmental consequences that has bought.

We are not an agricultural economy and are burning our bridges with closest trading partners, have no additional FTA's in fact will lose access to 50 FTA's inc the most recent, the EU/Japan one signed last week.

I do agree on the carbon foot print of food though but of course, has knock on effects for countries we buy food from.

I tried to calm my panicked dh with the NZ story. I think our stash of food calms him more.

Regarding the use of the army, should it be necessary.
They are a subset of UK citizens that have different regulations applied to them. They are organised in regiments etc and trained to follow orders and disobeying the orders, which emanate from the government ultimately, has different repercussions to other groups. They are also independently 'mobile' and have fuel and resources available that are not to any other groups. While they could be deployed on the streets if there is significant civil unrest that the police can't handle but unless things go really badly they would be carrying out duties assigned to them. They are also partners and family relations to the wider public, therefore not an 'enemy'.
While this is of course stating the 'bleeding obvious' there seems to be a misconception that 'calling the army in' will immediately lead to snipers on street corners shooting at the public.

I would be very surprised if businesses were not looking at how they could mitigate any disruption - resourcing their ingredients within the UK where possible, changing their menus to using more seasonal products etc

Of course businesses are looking at how to mitigate disruption, but in respect of food, the UK has not been able to feed itself for around 200 years (which is why around half of the food eaten in the UK is imported) so sourcing ingredients from the UK and changing menus to seasonal products will have very limited success.

I personally don't think it would be a bad thing if we really had to rethink about what we eat and when. The carbon foot print of so many of our food stuffs is astronomical.

I don't think anyone will disagree with you on this point, but the fact remains that food has to be imported as the UK has relied on food from abroad for centuries. The last time that this supply was disrupted was during WW2, when every square inch of available land was used for growing food, and there was still nowhere near enough to feed the population without introducing severe rationing.

If there is a no Brexit then we will know about it in advance, unlike sudden changes in the weather or unknown shortages which are exacerbated by everyone running off to buy the last loaf.

I assume you mean a No Deal Brexit. The UK is now just over 3 months from Brexit-day on 29th March but still nobody knows what the plans are for leaving the EU. Hard Brexit? Transition period? Who knows.

One of my largest clients is a haulage company that brings in fresh food from the EU for a UK supermarket chain. They don't know what is happening after 29/3. In the event of a Hard Brexit, i.e. No Deal, then the business will require a permit, the drivers will require new commercial licenses and the vehicles will require new certifications. They will also require access to the HMRC system that is still being developed, and staff will need to be trained in the new customs clearance procedures.

There is no clarity around any of these issues, making it impossible for him to plan with any certainty. If permits are required, they will be competing with 10,000 other hauliers for just over 900 EU permits. They have no idea how they will get the drivers and vehicles compliant by 29th March - even if they get the definitive information tomorrow, there is too little time to achieve this by 29th March. They have had no sight of the any new customs IT or procedures, so cannot recruit or train the required staff. Finally, if the RHA estimates are correct, and it takes hours to clear each truck through customs in Calais and again through Dover, his vehicles and drivers will be facing queues measured in days. The business only makes money when the wheels are turning - having trucks costing £200k each sat idle for days will put them out of business in a matter of months.

If there were a no-deal Brexit and neither the U.K. nor Ireland wanted a hard border, who would put it up? The EU?

Abra1de The UK would most probably have to implement one due to WTO MFN rules as explained here tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2018/07/18/does-the-wto-require-countries-to-control-their-borders/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Otherwise they'd leave themselves open to disputes. Also,

The Forces are involved in planning for No Deal Brexit because they have expertise in certain areas that are not necessarily to do with combat.

10,000 trucks queued on the M20 will require marshalling; 10,000 drivers will require food and water, toilets and other facilities - all tasks that the Army can undertake as they are used to the logistics of this type of task, can cope with the scale and have sufficient personnel to work on the ground. While there won't be squaddies on Wimbledon High Street, they will very much in evidence around the ports, managing and supplying the affected traffic and freeing up the police for tasks elsewhere.

Likewise the RAF can use their logistics skills to run an airbridge for vital medicines from the EU - particularly if commercial flights are restricted or curtailed.