No Deal Brexit - Bring it on

[Bearbehind]

It’s economic suicide but there’s clearly no other way to demonstrate to Leavers what a shit show this all is.

Leavers resolutely refuse to listen to anything negative after 3 years, so fuck it.

I feel for those who woukd be affected by it but I didn’t cause it.

The irony is there’s not a Tory MP with the guts he cone PM and then to do it - so this mess will go on indefinitely.

Of course EU will insist on certain criteria before it enters trade talks in the event of no deal, it may not be the actual WA but it will be something very similar with the same core parameters such as the backstop. The point is the UK will be very much on the back foot in a no deal situation with economic turmoil and international pressure to maintain the GFA and peace in NI so the EU will have them over a barrel in terms of what they will insist on. The EU are already well prepared for such a scenario meanwhile the UK are in chaos and too busy fighting amongst ourselves.

So in other words, to those MPs who think UK can opt for no deal on April 12 then open talks on an FTA without paying the £39 billion or accepting the backstop, Mr Barnier is saying a big 'non'. This position was agreed by all 27 Member States at a recent ambassadors' meeting.
Nick Gutteridgee*
@nick_gutteridge
Replying to @nick_gutteridge
Barnier says if there's no deal 'a few months after I'm sure UK will ask EU to begin negotiations' on trade. But warns 'In that case Withdrawal Agreement we put on the table at the beginning of this negotiation will be still here. Citizens rights, Ireland, financial obligations.'

Sorry that was a cut and paste from Twitter - i haven't done it before so it looks a bit bodged.

Not sure there would be no exporting of services under WTO GATS but clearly they'd be little reason (over time) to choose the UK over a EEA country.

Folk need to realise how quickly financial centres can be built, take Canary wharf for example.

The SE of England bank rolls the rest of the UK, lose a sizable portion of this tax take and it will hurt.

with the same core parameters such as the backstop

How can that be possible?

We will have left.

We can technically do what we like.

I don’t agree with it but I also don’t agree with scaremongering to insist the backstop would have to be enforced once we are a third country.

A border or analternative solution would need to be immediate, hence the backstop is redundant.

Top tip. Google “Barnier after no deal” and you will find a wide variety of articles stating that the issues in the WA will remain on the table after no deal. The OP is obviously not following what the EU is saying, repeatedly.

If we want a FTA then they have said that at the very least some of the WA will be their starting point. I follow Barnier and Guy Verhofstadt on Twitter and it's definitely been said a number of times. They've been consistent but it's been under reported in the Uk. I imagine they feel they will have sufficient leverage.

I also despair OP and part of me just thinks bring it on let's see how it goes because it's the only way to reason with people. Even the most ardent Brexiters have admitted that the only upside to leaving is 'delivering the will of the people' and economic benefits might not be felt for 50 years or so. That any government would willingly take the country into an economic crisis just to win a popularity contest is just mind boggling.

Yes usually and not a single one states that the WA needs to be signed, only that the key elements within it need to be agreed.

Do you really not see the huge difference between having to sign something that is already documented and re-entering negiotiations, even if the result is the same?

It shouldn’t make a difference but, in Brexit world, it is huge.

You’re just playing with semantics. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

Semantics are everything in this shit show.

Insisting the WA needs to be signed, even in the event of no deal, just pisses Leavers off even more because it’s not true.

That gets extrapolated into everything else quoted under ‘project fear’ being untrue.

Stick to the actual facts.

It makes little difference in reality but it’s a slippery slope to start twisting facts.

We will have left.
*
We can technically do what we like.*

Yes maybe but if we are desperate for a deal with the EU (and we will be) then concessions and compromises will have to be made. There will also pressure from the USA that is hugely supportive of Ireland and the GFA especially in the run up to the US elections support for Ireland is a big vote winner.

But that still doesn’t mean we will sign the current WA.

Does it really matter what it's called if the terms are the same?

Semantics probably will end up being a critical factor.

But at the end of the day, there will be no deal that does not include an Irish backstop, and there will be no deal that offers the U.K. frictionless access to the single market without free movement.

So realistically it is highly likely that if there is a chaotic exit (I won't call it no deal, because even no dealers assume there will be a deal), the eventual document that is signed prior to the start of trade negotiations will look very much like the WA - except that the terms will probably be less favourable (no all-UK customs territory).

Does it really matter what it's called if the terms are the same?

It absolutely does - that’s just how ridiculous this situation has become.

I don't think it's scaremongering to point out what Barnier et al have repeatedly said. And they've said they will bring back the WA before we can begin negotiating the FTA.

Where has that been explicitly stated not?

I accept the contents wil be discussed but that’s not the same as signing this WA?

So the UK leaves the EU with no deal.

The UK then seeks to negotiate terms to trade with the EU more favourable than under WTO rules.

The EU sets out terms for negotiation to start - settle outstanding financial commitments, ?agree citizens rights (but this might already have passed to level of UK - individual state to agree), Good Friday Agreement to be upheld or ?UK in breach of an International Treaty - then discuss future relationship for trade (only).

UK Gov't spins this as 'we won na.na, ne na na' and the world agrees!

It might be the 'feelz' in the UK for some of the electorate, for the rest, and the rest of the world it is what is the legal, moral economically sensible way of proceeding.

Pretty much exactly that pollyanna but there is a difference between that and signing the current WA

So, the cunning plan is to rename it and then the Brexitees won’t notice that the conditions are the same as the old WA? I’m sure Barnier will call it whatever you like, but the terms will be the same.

So, the cunning plan is to rename it and then the Brexitees won’t notice that the conditions are the same as the old WA

Pretty much

And if you don’t see there is a difference you have had your eyes shut for 3 years.

I thought the quote I'd posted earlier from Nick Gutteride illustrated that Barnier anticipates that the WA comes out., go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1112977968895275008

Maybe it will be renamed to make it less embarrassing.

www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-EPTEXT+CRE+20190403+ITEM-011+DOC+XML+V0EN&language=EN&query=INTERV&detail=1-037-000

It’s all a bit irrelevant because I don’t believe we’ll ever get to that point but if Remainers keep insisting shite like we’ll have to sign the WA even under no deal, it makes it more likely.