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?

If my memory serves me well Deal or No deal was never mentioned because the concept had not even come up. At the time of the referendum leave ministers did say that a deal with the EU would be easy to do because they were talking about a trade deal. Never before had a country been in total regularity alignment with a trading block and was asking for a trade deal.

At no stage did anyone ever think that the EU want to do this 'divorce deal' and insist on not wanting to even discuss a trade deal at the same time. If we had been able to discuss the trade deal at the same time we wouldn't have this problem with the back stop. We would be negotiating a free trade deal and a back stop would not be needed.

Had we had a stronger PM who put her foot down and insisted we discuss trade at the same time we would be in a very different place.
If we had had a stronger PM who didn't 'give in' to the EU and if we had a PM who didn't change the goal posts at Chequers and we had continued with David Davis and the Brexit depts. Canada+++ deal we would be in a very different place.

We are at present looking at the divorce deal and have backed ourselves into a corner. As far as I'm concerned, leaving no deal on the table is the only way to get out of this. We have to look strong but I very much doubt the PM will do that. This has been the whole problem having a PM who is fundamentally a remainer and a HofC filled with remainers.

The Remainers killed the unicorns!

Is it possible that the problem is not the strength of the PM but the reality that the UK is fighting from a hugely weakened position, and that whoever had negotiated, the outcome would have been broadly the same? (And I am seriously no fan of May, Davis, Raab etc)

@missesbiggens @Weetabixandshreddies
You will never convince me that No Deal is a good idea.
Leave/WA I can accept.
If I'm wrong, no biggie.
If you're wrong, absolute fucking catastrophe.
Are you prepared to risk it? Because I hope the grown ups in Parliament stop this insanity.

"Unfortunately the WA contains terms that could keep us in the EU indefinitely but without any representation at all. "

Hyperbole, the back stop is a last resort if a trade deal which sorts these issues out is not reached by the date of the end of the withdrawal period. Even then the EU and the UK have to agree to it being removed. The UK's red lines brought it about not the EU.

At no stage did anyone ever think that the EU want to do this 'divorce deal' and insist on not wanting to even discuss a trade deal at the same time.

This is plainly not correct and it would be pretty easy to provide links to legal commenters (eg David Allen Green who writes for the FT) who were saying this long before the referendum.

"Had we had a stronger PM who put her foot down and insisted we discuss trade at the same time we would be in a very different place."

Except this wouldn't have worked, a trade deal can only be negotiated by a third party. David Davis was responsible for this bit of negotiation too.

This is the thing you are failing to realise, the fantasy "trade deal at the same time as withdrawal deal" was never, ever on the table. How withdrawal is negotiated is set out in Article 50.

{They overall thrust of the WA is to leave and is written with this in mind
But only when the EU deems fit, not when the UK decides.}

That is your paranoia speaking.
Mrs May can go to Brussels this afternoon and sign a document that says the UK will leave tonight. OK problems with the UK political system would make it 'illegal' on the UK side but I am pretty sure technically it is true.
The WA is a graduated departure process as it highlights 760 or so major treaties and legislation that need rewriting. Mrs May and advisors, and the EU departure teams have got together and at an educated guess think between 2 and 4 years is a workable time period to go through the legal process.
During that time, the UK might say 'this aspect would be handy to keep' and can therefore negotiate for that, in others it can be dropped immediately.
The WA will take a long time in a transition period if the UK has no clear idea of where it wants to go, the same as any journey. If you don't know where you want to go, how will you know when you have arrived.
It is very likely that during transition a degree of pragmatism might just hit UK MPs when they realise that many of the unicorns they have been promising have run away.

Misti - I will rephrase that - 'No one in the leave or remain camp mentioned that the divorce would have to be dealt with first and no trade deal would be discussed at all. Had it been spelt out then ministers on the leave side wouldn't have been saying that the deal would be the easiest ever.

Had it been spelt out then ministers on the leave side wouldn't have been saying that the deal would be the easiest ever.

Shouldn’t they have checked before making such a big assertion?

Mrsbiggens, thanks for the link to the outcome of leaving the EU. I hadn’t seen it and it strikes me as expressing exactly what will happen. You clearly believe it’s all nonsense. What I would like to know is, if it was the case that it is not nonsense and would actually happen, would you still vote for a no deal? Would you be prepared to undergo those consequences simply to be out of the EU?

{Had it been spelt out then ministers on the leave side wouldn't have been saying that the deal would be the easiest ever.}
Absolutely.
It is like the NI secretary, Nicky Morgan? not understanding how voting works in NI and other cabinet ministers having bugger all idea of how the world actually works.
For them to then claim that they know more than the people who actually do the various jobs in the 'real world' is truly disgusting.
Even a couple of days ago, BoJo claiming he knows more about the realities of car production than the UK manager of JLR.

"Had it been spelt out then ministers on the leave side wouldn't have been saying that the deal would be the easiest ever."

Except that they did say that, it was derided as "project fear" the fact that we would have to renegotiate the relationship, and declare article 50 was well known.

It was of course possible to agree to start negotiating the trade deal once the terms of leaving had been agreed. But the UK still has not agreed to the terms of leaving!

Even if we went with a no deal Brexit now, future governments could apply to re-join (and I suspect they will).

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 ?

If the UK gets its act together and sorts out a deal by the end of 2020, the backstop will never be implemented.

Anyone who objects to the backstop is demonstrating that they have no confidence in our Government.

The Withdrawal agreement addresses in full the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland. It is the insurance policy that guarantees that, whatever the circumstances, there will be no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland and it will protect the Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement 1998 in all its dimensions, North-South cooperation, and the all-island economy.

If an agreement on the future EU-UK relationship is reached by 31 December 2020, the EU and the UK have agreed that a backstop does not have to be used.

Can the EU or the UK ask to stop applying the backstop in whole or in part?
If at any time after the transition period, the EU or the UK considers that this Protocol, in whole or in part, is no longer necessary, it may notify the other party, setting out its reasons. The Joint Committee [as established in Article 164 of the Withdrawal Agreement] will consider the notification and may seek an opinion from institutions created by the Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement 1998. Following discussions in the Joint Committee, the EU and the UK may decide jointly that the Protocol, in whole or in part, is no longer necessary to achieve its objectives.

"Making new trade deals will be easy and quick.
There is a technological solution to the NI /Ireland border issue which can be implemented now."
The whole shebang is predicated on those two things being the case. But they aren't. So we are fucked.

On the morning of 30 March, customs officers will need to have a COMPLETE schedule of what the 'new' tariffs (under WTO rules) will be. That is EVERY single item or component that arrives or departs.

Why do you think this is a problem? The tariffs are already available and Customs (or their computer system) have to deal with around 40% of our imports coming from non EU/EEA countries already. It may, possibly (probably), be an issue if (when) the new customs computer system isn't up and running on time or doesn't work properly, but otherwise that side of things is fine, understood, and there shouldn't be many problems except for end-user importers and exporters being unfamiliar with the system to start with.

LEGALLY it all has to be signed off before the truck can move. Thus even 'No deal' requires a mountain of new paperwork.

It really doesn't. It just means that we''ll be treating the 58-ish% percent of EEA imports and exports exactly the same as we treat the 42-ish% of non-EEA. Logically that's probably a 140-ish% increase in transactions for Customs to deal with (assuming we don't stop buying or selling things!) - the vast majority of which will go through without any human checking or intervention anyway.

The real extra work is for the manufacturer/exporter/importer of the goods but none of it is anything 'new' or complicated, unless you've never exported outside the EU before. And of course there are plenty of forwarders etc. around who do have the required experience, because they already do it every day.

That's not to trivialise the potential for problems with vehicles queuing at Dover/Calais but it's not potential additional paperwork that's the problem, it's just the basic physical problem of every lorry having to stop for a few minutes before leaving the port.

Obviously there will be some sort of cost implications but there's no real 'mountain' of extra paperwork to do - just an extra stage of admin processes which most people aren't familiar with.

I can live with WA. We leave. Leave is what people voted for. We can make a shit deal work somehow .

Can we? I don’t think the WA form of leave is what was voted for, at all. Leavers were banging on about control and sovereignty but the WA actually cedes power. Yes we get ‘control of our border’, but we also remain required to comply with essentially all EU rules. Remainers, in contrast, did want to retain the rules plus FOM, but I sure as hell didn’t vote for a halfway house.

So it’s not what the 48% want, and having been subjected to my leaver family’s Facebook posts for 2.5 years, it’s not what they voted for either.

I don't want WA either @SalrycLuxx . But I want No Deal even less. And if we have to go WA to avoid No Deal, I'll take that.
Trouble is, as you rightly observe, it's a shit deal. But a shit Deal is better than no deal.
Because the best deal on offer is the one we have now.

That is your paranoia speaking.
Of course it isn't paranoia - it is the terms of the agreement.

The EU might be eager to help us leave asap. On the other hand, if they wish to frustrate the process and drag it out then they will be able to, particularly if doing so works in the favour of the member countries with the ability to import to the UK under favourable terms? What incentive is there for the EU to let us leave under those conditions?

Why would the EU want to drag it out?

This is a ridiculously paranoid situation, but it fits in with the terminology used by leavers regarding the EU. Everything is imposed on us, we aren't part of the decision making, the language of occupation used.

The WA isn't even a "shit deal".

Its the best that the UK could hope for with its red lines, and means that a soluation to the Irish border will be worked towards by a trade deal.

I think it is worth remembering that only 3% of all non EU imports are physically checked at the border so not a massive difference yo now, given that there are spot checks done at Dover now.