Civil Servants told to stand down on No Deal planning

[HPFA]

According to Sky News:

twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1116391388638318597

Good job government and businesses haven't wasted huge amounts of money on this.

The UK leaving is not much of a 'threat' any more. The EU industries will then be in a position to suck out any industry from the UK

UK industry has been in decline since 1980s and UK economy is now 80% services. So would it make any difference if UK industry declined further?

If they conclude how they voted in the past was wrong they can vote differently in the future

You’re in favour of a second referendum?

I’m not talking about voters, I’m talking about politicians. Are no-deal politicians seriously behind the idea that we stay trading on WTO terms forever?

I thought their plan was to crash out with no deal, then negotiate trade deals from our spectacularly weakened position, trading on WTO terms in the meantime.

{ If they conclude how they voted in the past was wrong they can vote differently in the future just like in General Elections in which UK }

You obviously have no concept of how complicated this is. With a 4 year interval between parliamentary elections, there would be at least 2 parliaments before the necessary trade deals can be concluded.

No dealers are very confused about whether they want deals or not.

The Irish border meetings between the ERG and Pelosi were instructive, with regard to the failure of Brexiters to engage with other countries' foreign policy imperatives. Peter Foster of that well known (/snark on) remain newspaper (/snark off) the Daily Telegraph had some interesting things to say about this on twitter yesterday.

Too long to post here, so I'll add a link for those who are sufficiently interested in reality.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1118456412919693312.html

{UK industry has been in decline since 1980s and UK economy is now 80% services.}

You obviously have missed the bit about significant chunks of the service industry having relocated or planning to relocate to Europe which is has to do to maintain the certifications to work within Europe.
Services also depend on Freedom of Movement, something the UK has pledged to stop, thus cutting off more business.

You’re in favour of a second referendum?

I don't think it will help. Result likely to as close as in 2016.

Plus it has not yet been proven that Brexit is a bad idea as it has not yet happened. I don't remember any General Elections being re-run on the basis of:

"Although Labour/Conservative (or whoever) received the most votes the election must be done again as we know for sure in advance that Labour/Conservative (or whoever) will ruin the Country"

I thought their plan was to crash out with no deal, then negotiate trade deals from our spectacularly weakened position, trading on WTO terms in the meantime

Not quite accurate. More correct to say:

I thought their plan was to crash out with no deal, then negotiate new trade deals trading on WTO terms in the meantime

I don't remember any of the no deal MP's saying that UK would be spectacularly weakened, but again that is their opinion which others may not share.

I think a referendum on May's deal is essential and all but inevitable now. People who want Brexit need to get behind it, because it's the only practical route to Brexit on offer.

Plus it has not yet been proven that Brexit is a bad idea as it has not yet happened.

Breaking an international peace treaty is definitely a bad idea, I don’t think we need to do it as a proof of concept.

I don’t remember any of the no deal MP’s saying that the UK would be spectacularly weakened

Didn’t Rees Mogg say it would take at least 50 years to recover?

{I thought their plan was to crash out with no deal, then negotiate new trade deals trading on WTO terms in the meantime}

Brilliant plan EXCEPT that to negotiate revised WTO terms ALL interested parties have to be at the table. The EU is very definitely an interested party in almost everything the UK does and UNLESS the WA is signed, they will refuse to negotiate, thus 'stalling' the WTO procedure.
To add icing to this small cake, the UK would be risking breaking the GFA which would inhibit the USA being involved in new talks.

I think a referendum on May's deal is essential

Problem with May's deal is that many think that it does not solve the Irish Border issue and UK could be locked into the EU forever. That's why Government broke their backs to keep the Attorney General's report from becoming public. However, I would go for a vote on May's deal if the question on the referendum was:

Leave with May's deal

or

Leave with no deal

Logic behind that is that the vote to leave has already happened. So it is now a question of how people want to leave. Not possible to have the question to be :

Leave with May's deal

or

Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU

as that would be seen as choice between remain or remain.

Breaking an international peace treaty is definitely a bad idea, I don’t think we need to do it as a proof of concept

So why was the referendum allowed to take place if a vote to leave could not be legally implemented?

Didn’t Rees Mogg say it would take at least 50 years to recover

No. He said it would take 50 years for UK to feel the full benefit of leaving the EU. Still a long time to wait, but if future generations are better off then it is worth the wait.

why was the referendum allowed to take place if a vote to leave could not be legally implemented?

I thought we were talking about no-deal?
Why was the referendum allowed to take place is a bloody good question though. The answer is Cameron thought he would win.

May's deal vs remain are what's on offer.

The EU aren't offering anything else.

If you no deal, you'll have to go back to the EU and - surprise surprise - they will say, sign the WA and then we'll talk about trade.

So if you really want Brexit, start supporting May's deal. If people don't support it in a new referendum it will be the fault of the brexiters who have trashed it.

Brilliant plan EXCEPT that to negotiate revised WTO terms ALL interested parties have to be at the table

They will be at the table, but terms offered to UK may not be as good as they hoped.

the UK would be risking breaking the GFA which would inhibit the USA being involved in new talks

USA will use the GFA to get a better deal for themselves, but if there is money to had by the USA they will be at the table.

a bad idea

The thing about no deal is that it's an absence of an idea or a plan. It's just a non-idea, a non-plan. Calling it an idea is giving it credit for a creativity or invention that do not exist.

{I think a referendum on May's deal is essential}

There are 2 things going on here:
In the relationship with the EU, the WA will be signed.

A referendum, or tossing a coin or any other way of getting to chose 100% that the WA is signed is simply a 'domestic' matter for the UK.

As I said yesterday, the UK are wasps in a bottle. The only way out is to sign the WA. How many wasps die in the fight in the bottle is not relevant to the EU (although they do not want any fighting).

Deliberately driving my car into a tree is evidently a bad idea even though it can’t be proven in advance that it is extremely likely to damage my car beyond repair. And possibly the tree, and inconvenience other people.

{They will be at the table, but terms offered to UK may not be as good as they hoped.}

Maybe they might turn up and simply say 'No' to everything, just as the DUP are happy to do, or like David Davies, turn up without notes and still say no, or kick cans for a year or two.

May's deal vs remain are what's on offer

The EU aren't offering anything else

Maybe, but what forces UK to accept the offer? Remember T May saying that no deal is better than a bad deal. EU can't prevent the UK leaving without a deal.

it will be the fault of the brexiters who have trashed it

I will repeat what has been included in my earlier posts;

If people conclude how they voted previously was wrong they can vote differently when the next opportunity to vote comes along. JRM has made that comment on Question Time.

If you no deal, you'll have to go back to the EU and - surprise surprise - they will say, sign the WA and then we'll talk about trade

Can't see EU not wanting to trade with UK in the future. All these threats about WA will soon disappear when there is money to be had. If EU was not bothered about UK leaving they would have said goodbye on 23 June 2016. UK is the third largest donor to the EU.

It has been my view that EU are afraid of the domino effect whereby after one of the members has left others may follow and there will not be an EU. Then to the horror of MEP's they will lose their 100K guaranteed pensions. I remember in the early stages of the settlement negotiations that Brussels talked about the amount needed to guarantee pensions before they started talking about anything else.

Deliberately driving my car into a tree is evidently a bad idea even though it can’t be proven in advance

Yes it can be proved in advance because car accidents, including those where cars have hit trees, have happened in the past. Hence the result is already known.

No EU member has ever voted to leave the EU before so it cannot be said with certainty what the outcome will be.

what forces UK to accept the offer

Geopolitics and the reality of international trade.

Go read what Pelosi and Boyle said on their visit to Ireland. Go read the German and French press. Get out of your dreams-of-empire bubble and engage with the real world for a change.

Maybe they might turn up and simply say 'No' to everything, just as the DUP are happy to do, or like David Davies, turn up without notes and still say no, or kick cans for a year or two

Maybe or maybe not. Either way it is speculation. Money speaks all languages and if there is money to be made it is surprising how quickly people forget the past.

Brexiters gave this weird idea that geopolitics is all about money, but even if they were right, they forget that what makes money in the short term may be a strategically poor choice in the longer term.

Why do you think brexiters were wrong about German car companies begging Merkel to do a deal? Instead, German car companies prioritised a bigger issue (single market integrity) because they took the view that this was more important to their longer term strategic interests.

what forces UK to accept the offer

Geopolitics and the reality of international trade

So why did T May say many times over

NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL.

She would never have said that if no deal was off the table.

I think it's pretty clear that May has told quite a lot of porkies, and that "no deal is better than a bad deal" is one of them. More fool you if you believe her.