No Deal supporters? Can you see any downsides? If so, why are these outweighed by the upsides.

[bellinisurge]

Genuine question. I was prepared to accept WA but that was apparently not sufficient. So, why is No Deal better?

{Back to the assumption that leave voters did not know what they were voting}
All along leavers have voted for stuff the don't want, rather than things they do.
Leave, in it's purest sense would mean that the UK has no trade whatsoever with the EU. There would be no movement of people, no cooperation of police, regulatory bodies or everything else. The 'white cliffs of Dover' would just be a stain on the horizon (viewed from the Calais area). Is this what 'Leavers' voted for?

Leavers imagine that they can still buy the European products directly (not reimported from the USA) and waltz over to the EU for their holidays. A50 says that all treaties cease to exist from the day of exit.
Following on from that, the legal treaties that allow flights, ships and so on SHOULD all stop until new negotiations have taken place.
The day after your car or house insurance expires, you are not covered. So if you have an accident and try to claim, you will hear something like 'tough, it's your problem' from the insurers.
Have leave voters really thought this through?

The red lines were necessary to deliver the leave that UK voted for.

Leave permutations are almost limitless and could not be included on the ballot paper.

Which is it then LifeContinues? The permutations couldn't be listed, so no one knows what the Leavers voted for. Theresa May wasn't then PM, so hadn't dreampt up her Red lines. So your argument is nonsense. As most of your arguments are.

The Red lines were there because Theresa May thought that would appease the ERG. It hasn't done, they've destroyed her as PM. If we had another Referendum then we would be able to say that yes, this is what people voted for. Or No, as the case may be.

The permutations couldn't be listed, so no one knows what the Leavers voted for

The question on the ballot paper had to be an equal balance between remain and leave. Permutations on leave would have opened the door for remain supporters to say the leave vote was divided and none of them exceeded the number of votes given to remain.

So you could have situation whereby the % that voted remain was lower than the % who voted leave, but remain are declared winners. Similar to GE when it is often the case the winning party, because of the seats system, is in power without a majority of the actual votes.

If the Red Lines with respect to Customs Union and Single Market are not included how does that represent leaving the EU?

@LifeContinues - If the Red Lines with respect to Customs Union and Single Market are not included how does that represent leaving the EU?

Norway us part of the single market but they are not in the EU.

You are deciding what leave means to you and extrapolating to the referendum result.

{The question on the ballot paper had to be an equal balance between remain and leave. }

The problem still comes down to leave voters not understanding what leave really means in a hard financial way that will screw up their lives.
As I said earlier, if the leave campaign had been honest and saif the Pound in your pocket will be worth (currently about 95p but by all probability will fall considerably more, and significant numbers will lose good paying jobs, would they still have voted leave, just to see a few fewer 'foreign' faces around?

A vote to remain meant nothing changes. A vote to leave meant everything changes.

LeClerc,
Leave "in its purest sense", as you put it does not mean no trade or police cooperation etc.

We are leaving the EU. We are not removing the UK from the continent of Europe.
After we leave the EU we can still have trade with the EU just as Canada and Australia do.
We can still have cooperation on policing and security.

To what extent we have these will depend upon deals between us and the rEU.

But leaving the EU does not mean that we can't travel to or have dealings with the EU.

You are talking nonsense.

But leaving the EU does not mean that we can't travel to or have dealings with the EU

That’s my view. In the event of a no deal UK reverts to WTO as a starting point for future negotiations on trade deals. Remain supporters are trying to create the impression that leave means UK can never anything to do with the EU the ever again.

@Coppersulphate - To what extent we have these will depend upon deals between us and the rEU

Yes. And leaving with no deal means that these deals have to be negotiated, a process that takes years. In the meantime, all trade takes place on WTO terms. Cooperation on security etc needs to be negotiated and agreed.

@LifeContinues - That’s my view. In the event of a no deal UK reverts to WTO as a starting point for future negotiations on trade deals. Remain supporters are trying to create the impression that leave means UK can never anything to do with the EU the ever again.

Nobody is suggesting that. Trade deals take years to complete. In the meantime, all trade is conducted on WTO terms. There is a reason why pretty much nobody conducts trade in WTO terms.

{But leaving the EU does not mean that we can't travel to or have dealings with the EU. }

Currently with the HoC refusing to pass the WA there will be NO forward negotiations with the EU.
Which part of 'No new negotiations will take place until the (or a) WA is signed' are you struggling with?

{After we leave the EU we can still have trade with the EU just as Canada and Australia do.
We can still have cooperation on policing and security. }

AFTER negotiations which follow the signing of the WA.
If you want to fly on planes that are not certified (and insured) flown by pilots other than 'John from down the pub' then the WA will have to be signed quick smartish and negotiations started.
Take it up with the EU lawyers if you don't agree with me, I am only repeating what they have said.
The UK government only has jurisdiction within the UK and a few miles out to sea and cannot 'demand' the EU or anyone else cooperates with the UK. All treaties cease to exist from the date of exiting is a very powerful statement, similar to delete . on an old computer. It is a master reset.

Thinking that life will just continue with a 'no deal' is just a fallacy, EVERYTHING changes, that's what A50 means. Eventually renegotiations can start, but the HoC are preventing it, while simultaneously pretending they can stop no deal, which is the current legal position internationally unless the UK Prime Minister does something.

That should be 'delete star dot star' but MN programming won't print it.

So no deal it is then as if EU won’t move on the existing WA and HoC won’t agree WA what’s left?

{ In the meantime, all trade is conducted on WTO terms.}

Even this is an oversimplification. If you are making and selling widgets in the UK, whose certifications are you going to use? If it is sold to the EU it has to be via EU certification with traceability, but a crash out has ripped up the legislation allowing that to happen.
Even a 'cuddly toy', is it fire resistant and with no small parts suitable for children? Who will insure it (against you being sued for possible injury) because that too needs agreements that have been ripped up by crashing out.
If you were making widgets in the UK and selling to the USA or Australia under the umbrella of being part of the EU, yet again, that has been ripped up so you have to renegotiate the certifications etc between you and the USA/Aus.
These processes take years. This is just the absolute tip of the iceberg of the crap that will happen with a 'crash out'.

The problem still comes down to leave voters not understanding what leave really means in a hard financial way that will screw up their lives

Back to the tangible vs intangible benefits of leave.

{So no deal it is then as if EU won’t move on the existing WA and HoC won’t agree WA what’s left?}

You tell us. It is the leavers creating the problems.
Until replacement certification/insurance etc is reestablished the UK will not be able to sell goods legally except those that are not under the umbrella of the EU currently. There has been some attempt at 'cut and paste' of regulations, but they are not necessarily ratified yet.

@1tisILeClerc - { In the meantime, all trade is conducted on WTO terms.} Even this is an oversimplification.

Yes, I know. But given the refusal of some posters to make any attempt to understand, I figure over simplification may make some inroads.

Isthisafreename
Indeed. WTO rules are just that, a set of trading rules. Although there default tariffs NO ONE trades under those as they would cripple most economies. Thus everyone goes through the rigmarole of creating deals.
The WA is similar, basically the rules for disengagement. The PD defines the final relationships.

So no deal it is then as if EU won’t move on the existing WA and HoC won’t agree WA what’s left?
A general election? Apologies to Brenda, but I do think we do need another one.

LeClerc, you are wrong yet again.

The problem does not come down to leavers.

The problem comes down to fervent remainers thinking that the only thing that matters, that is important is the "hard financial" stuff. It is not.
To me the underlying principles matter far more.

I would rather be out of the EU than remain and be shackled to their stupid, overbearing bullying.

I would rather be out of the EU than remain and be shackled to their stupid, overbearing bullying

Yet you can’t cite one example of said ‘stupid overbearing bullying’ only the principle that you don’t like it.

@Coppersulphate - I would rather be out of the EU than remain and be shackled to their stupid, overbearing bullying

Would you care to share some examples?

*The problem comes down to fervent remainers thinking that the only thing that matters, that is important is the "hard financial" stuff. It is not.
To me the underlying principles matter far more. *

Unfortunately, principles don't put food on the table.

The problem comes down to fervent remainers thinking that the only thing that matters, that is important is the "hard financial" stuff

I will sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth that.

17.4 Million voted leave and they are not all multi millionaires. So there had to be reasons other than money that prompted them to vote leave.

I love the ridiculous notion of fervent Remainers. We are not out yet because ERG wouldn't compromise. Are they fervent Remainers?

Interesting article in the Irish Times. www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/simon-coveney-we-only-have-115-days-to-get-ready-for-a-no-deal-brexit-1.3949549?mode=amp

Simon Coveney (Irish Táiniste) stated: In recent weeks we have observed and listened to some inaccurate utterances about ourselves, the EU and the backstop.

Of course people can have their own opinions, but they cannot have their own facts. The facts are that Brexit is a British decision, triggering article 50 on March 29th, 2017, was a British decision, and the red lines laid down for the negotiation are British red lines.

The problem comes down to fervent remainers thinking that the only thing that matters, that is important is the "hard financial" stuff.

How much of the ‘hard financial stuff’ are you willing to accept in order to escape the EU copper?

Are you happy for food prices to increase or people to lose their jobs?

When does it become a price too high?

I suspect the answer is ‘until it affects me’ although you won’t admit that

" I suspect the answer is ‘until it affects me’ although you won’t admit that"

Becoming more and more obvious with each post.