To ask why would anyone want no deal?

[guinea36]

Watching Sunday morning political shows. A few politicians suggesting they would prefer no deal if necessary. These people are presumably intelligent and educated
Yet they believe - although I struggle to see it - that ultimately it will be better for the country economically in the long run. Just wondering what the theory is behind this belief?

It's possible to trade on WTO terms. You just won't do anything like so much trade, and so in the short term there are likely to be severe shortages of the goods that are currently imported on more favourable terms; in the longer term, GDP will be lower and people will, on average, be poorer. (Some will be richer though! Which is why this thread has nearly 500 posts).

It's not very complicated tbh.

{ if your understanding's correct that my business can't sell goods to a business in the EU in the absence of a trade deal, what do you think all these trucks queuing up at Calais are going to be carrying in the event of a no-deal?}
Unless there are certifications and legal agreements remade to cover 30 March onwards, there won't be any trucks. The EU has proposed an 'emergency' plan so that if the UK agrees that existing regulations can be carried forward ON THE EU'S TERMS, for a limited time period and can be withdrawn at any moment the EU decides.
The EU has witnessed the total shitshow the UK is creating and is offering help. LEGALLY they can simply ban all transport from the EU to the UK on 29 March. That is what the text of A50 says.

There ere no guarantees or promises about deals.

I think you will find that this is not in the least bit true. Even UKIP were still in their full-on "easiest deal in human history! German carmakers!" phase in 2015/2016, as was every single person on this thread posting in favour of no-deal.

Misti - loads of things have been discussed on here that have little direct impact on why we want to have a no deal or not. It doesn't preclude me from bring up one of the many things I dislike about the EU.

Boris -Obviously the 'trade unions against the EU' organisation has an agenda but show me a report or comment pouring scorn on leave that doesn't!

Why is my highlighting a major moral problem with the CAP wrong?why would you say 'it doesn't work'!!!
The idea that I have talked about one of the reasons I dislike the EU is me 'talking about my own personal outcomes not for what was on the ballot paper' - what are you on about Boris!
Bear has spent years on these boards asking leavers for their reasons for voting leave and remainers cross that a leaver would say ' we won, you lost'. Do you want a discussion or not Boris?

1tisILeClerc I wasn't making any comments about the ease (or otherwise) of conducting trade deals, just contradicting your frequently repeated incorrect assertion that it's not possible for trade to be carried out without a trade deal in existence.

While it seems many are under the misaprehension that 'no deal' means things will stay nearly the same, this is not true.
No deal looks like, you have gone to the hops and find that they closed 2 mionuted before you got there. You then walk home and find your car tyres slashed, the water and electricity have been cut off and as it is now raining, it the roof is leaking.
No deal is actually going backwards, not staying the same at all.

But leave.eu have no authority, and never did, to propose that 'leave the eu' meant leave with an exit agreement. Only the government have the authority to make that proposal and they didn't. The government were clear, leaving the EU means leaving the EU - no perks, no special deals. They were very, very clear on that.

iLeClerc obvious did understand, you have over simplified in order to make your point seem correct.

Of course we can still trade on a no deal, but this will be more difficult, and detrimental to UK firms ( far more so the EU), it increases the cost of exports, increases the length of time to wait for them and there regulatory issues too.

You simple example isn't correct at all.

{1tisILeClerc I wasn't making any comments about the ease (or otherwise) of conducting trade deals, just contradicting your frequently repeated incorrect assertion that it's not possible for trade to be carried out without a trade deal in existence.}

Arguing the toss about what happens in fantasyland is totally pointless.
You are a grown up in the real world, you need to acknowledge that and act appropriately.

"The government were clear, leaving the EU means leaving the EU - no perks, no special deals. They were very, very clear on that."

The government proposed the WA and the leave supporters voted it down.

Double the CAP might be an argument for Brexit. But you'll have to explain to me in words of one syllable how refusing to make a deal, thereby slashing cross channel trade and potentially breaking up the U.K., is going to help poor African countries. I am just not getting it.

Bellinisurge thank you for your findy thoughts and hope your DD feels better soon, presume she is too young for a hot toddy, my go to cold cure, well that and gargling gin

But if you follow the thread Boris, you will see the point of my post, which was a reply to someone who claimed that the referendum choices were stay in the EU or leave the EU with a deal. I was just pointing out that that was in fact false. The government who held the referendum did not promise any deals, they suggested that we would leave with no deal and it would be Armageddon.

Some leavers seem to have the idea that it is like playing with your toddler having a great time and things will stay the same.
Leaving with no deal in particular is the moment your toddler puts their hand in a fire or cuts themselves badly and it is time for the cute and cuddly to get very real and down to A+E.

Here <a class="break-all" href="https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160815143829/www.eureferendum.gov.uk/what-happens-if-we-leave/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160815143829/www.eureferendum.gov.uk/what-happens-if-we-leave/

And even this wasn't a promise, but a prediction, full of coulda, woulda, shoulda.

Tbe belligerence over how uneventful no Deal will Be makes me think Fuck 'em. Let 'em struggle.

The government were clear, leaving the EU means leaving the EU

Brexit means Brexit came after the referendum. There were multiple references to Switzerland and Norway in the official leave campaign materials, a campaign in which past and present government ministers were involved.

No deal was not even on the agenda before 2017 and anyone who claims they voted for it needs to provide evidence. You're all keen mumsnet posters, so how about a link to a pre June 2016 thread where you were proclaiming the benefits of no deal?

Well, Le Clerc, that's why we have a fire guard and rules in my house.

These analogies are hilarious and off-point. We're not all five years old you know.

"The government who held the referendum did not promise any deals, they suggested that we would leave with no deal and it would be Armageddon."

Except that Government are no longer in power.

Same argument goes for them then that you made for the leave.eu group.

But what you are really doing is shaping the facts for your own benefit.

When people voted leave, they did not vote for armageddon, they voted for the benefits that leave.eu and others advocated. No leave campaigner ever suggested that there would be no deal, in fact they almost all suggested that the remain campaign were all wrong, remember "project fear" ?

So we leave with no deal in 66 days time. We currently have no actual trade deals ready for this date, so we revert to WTO. For how long ? That is my question to leavers, how long do you think it will take to organise the trade deals that we would prefer to have ? weeks ? months ? years ? How much more preferential do you think these deals will be in comparison to our current deals, given that the whole world can see what a weak position we will be in ?

@frumpety thanks. I made here a honey/lemon toddy. And she's just had some shelf stable barista Oatly milk heated up with Ovaltine in it. Prepping special.

A deal wasn't a thing because it wasn't a thing. How hard is it understand this simple idea? Nobody mentioned any deals at all. A future relationship and trade deal is NOT the same as a deal just to leave the EU. This was never mentioned by either side. There is no link to no deal because the concept didn't exist then.

Which bits of that don’t you agree with misses?

Aren’t some of the predictions actually now worse than those the government made before?

No, people didn't vote for Armageddon. They voted to leave the EU. If they were clever enough to ignore the warnings, they were probably clever enough to ignore the false promises.

A future relationship and trade deal is NOT the same as a deal just to leave the EU.

You can't have the second two without the first, though. This has always been the case. If it wasn't explained then that is problematic (but I think the reality is that hardly any brexiters understood the A50 process, and many still don't).

This is all just shouting "squirrel" though because you are being called out for being economical with the truth about your pre-referendum position. No one voted for no deal because the leave campaign told everyone how easy a deal would be.