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?

@Namenic - If the border solution costs a significant amount to set up and maintain (eg block of concrete in Irish Sea), it does change the calculus of the leave/remain position.

A block of concrete in the Irish Sea would not solve the border problem. It would not be a practical solution for the realities of trade across the border. Have a look at the link I posted earlier to am ERSI report on cross-border trade.

It also wouldn't facilitate cross-border cooperation in areas such as heath, emergency services etc. Have a read of this report www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-s-mapping-report-stresses-need-for-open-irish-border-1.3932480

Basically, @LifeContinues "solution" would result in buckets of concrete dumped into the Irish Sea without solving the problem created by the UK when they conveniently forgot they had signed an international peace treaty.

@1tisILeClerc - I think @Namenic was referring to the amazing solution suggested by @LifeContinues of either using the Isle of Man or reclaiming land to create an island through which all trade between NI and RoI would pass.

@LifeContinues
Maybe look at the posts again. Not just on this thread, but others. There are examples of all what you referenced.
I have, I browse many threads, brexit and others and you are correct there are many examples, unfortunately none from you

Unless it has changed fairly recently, the EU 'backstop' solution (to be used if the UK crashes out with no deal), is to treat UK and NI as one 'zone' thus not needing a land border (apart from security around ports) which to the people living on both sides of the land border will mean no change.
Customs and security then get applied to goods from the UK to anywhere on the Island of Ireland.
Of course there is opposition to this, but it is up to the UK government to come up with a better plan. The 'real' better plan would be that the UK stays in the EU or adopts a customised version of Norway++ or some other permutation.
The UK is still trying to leave the EU but remain in with all the benefits at the same time.

The Isle of Man is it's own state, not part of the UK, at least not constitutionally. The UK can't simply 'steal' it.

you haven't done any of this things and you certainly haven't answered the original question

Merits the same answer to Jason118 which was look at the other posts on other threads. In your case you have commented many times to my posts and vice versa.

That an answer to your question is not what you wanted to hear does not mean the question was not answered.

No deal was not the original objective, but seems to be the most likely based on the insistence by EU that the WA must remain. The WA in my view does not come close to respecting the 2016 referendum.

The legal advice given by the attorney general, Cox, stated that UK could be locked into the EU forever based on the wording that does not oblige the EU to accept any of the proposals made by UK with respect to the Irish border.

For UK to pay £39 billion to leave the EU, but to end up remaining in the EU forever is the worst deal imaginable. Hence why MPs voted against it, including those who voted remain.

Upside of a no deal are;

Proves that government delivered their promise to leave the EU. This restores confidence in government taking into account the number of times Uk government has made manifesto promises for the purpose of being elected only to ignore once they have been elected.

Potential instant savings of £39 billion. That goes a long way.

Free to trade directly with other countries without the need for EU approval. The world becomes open. Remember EU is 15% of world trade only.

Europe GDP growth is nowhere near that of the developing economies which are 85% of the World economy.

UK growth as an individual country exceeds the overall growth of the EU. Reason is that it subsides the other 18 EU members who do not pay into the EU, but take money from the EU.

No further subscriptions payable to the EU which saves UK 9 Billion per year.

Downsides

This is subjective as no other EU member has left the EU before so there is no hindsight to compare with. However, here is a try:

Free trade access with EU is lost overnight until new deals are made. Chaotic transition WTO very likely

Effect on GFA not clear and GFA may fall by the wayside. Hostilities that GFA was intended to eliminate may reappear

Not paying the exit bill may discourage other countries from trade deals

Many other examples could be added for sure

@LifeContinues QED

@1tisILeClerc - The Isle of Man is it's own state, not part of the UK, at least not constitutionally. The UK can't simply 'steal' it.

Is brexit not about going back to the glory days of the empire? In which case, "stealing" sovereign states would be perfectly acceptable.

"Merits the same answer to Jason118 which was look at the other posts on other threads. In your case you have commented many times to my posts and vice versa.

That an answer to your question is not what you wanted to hear does not mean the question was not answered."

It's not like you can't be arsed to post. Forgive me if I can't be arsed to trawl through all your musings. Answer the question: why is No Deal worth it given all the negatives?

LifeContinues
Are you awake?
All your 'upsides have been discounted many times by many people over the last 2 years at least. Continuing to peddle the same crap makes you look somewhat foolish.

The downsides list is very long not least that if the UK leaves without a deal, there will be a period of at least 2 or 3 years before any meaningful negotiations will produce results.

The WA is essentially a long list of around 700 treaties that need to be terminated. When they have all been 'processed' the UK will be out, therefore it achieves the aim of 'leaving', which if this is the definition of 'leave' then it is job done.
The UK is leaving, it doesn't get to sneak back in and steal the biscuits, the door is shut.

{Is brexit not about going back to the glory days of the empire?}

I don't remember seeing the word Empire on the ballot paper, so no!

Answer the question: why is No Deal worth it given all the negatives?

It preserves democracy.

Without democracy it becomes law of the jungle and a return to the civil wars that prevailed before a system of democracy was established.

{It preserves democracy.}

So the UK risks bankrupting itself over a badly thought out and specified referendum in an attempt to 'prove' that it is democratic?
If it was such a brilliant idea, why has it taken 3 years for the UK government to come up with ACHIEVABLE benefits.
So far it has caused the economy to at best flatline, stir up hatred and pissed off many world leaders by forcing them to readjust their long term plans.

Your concern for ensuring civil stability is admirable. So why are you prepared-from a great distance - to wreck GFA? Are you not old enough to remember life before it? And why is my suggestion of a border in the sea (not an actual wall for those who think I mean that) such an anti democratic version of Leave?

To cap it all, you have the Brexit party, being led by Farage who was not elected standing in Brussels complaining about lack of democracy with his sole ability to be in Brussels was because others in the BP had been democratically elected.

Farage himself was elected as an MEP, sadly in the the South East. I am not responsible for his position thankfully.

“Many other examples could be added for sure”
A world of pain there in one short sentence.
You people haven’t a frigging scooby, have you? God help us.

@LifeContinues - It preserves democracy.

Democracy doesn't mean slavishly following through on a decision regardless of the impact. Sometimes, decisions need to be made for the greater good.

Quite aside from that, the referendum was advisory so the result need not be implemented. Additionally, the leave campaign was found to breach electoral law. The only reason the result could not be set aside was because the referendum was advisory rather than binding. You could make a very strong argument that in this instance the democratic course of action would be to set aside the result as that is what would have happened had the referendum been binding.

Potential instant savings of £39 billion. That goes a long way.

A mere drop in the ocean if the economy is fucked up

I suppose one good thing might be that Faridge and Widdecombe wouldn't get their pensions. That's it. I'm out of reasons to No Deal.

@1tisILeClerc - I don’t think the border in the Irish Sea is very tenable with the DUP - which is part of the border issue and keeping the peace in NI.

@songsofexperience - quite. £39billion is not much if you have to set up a new technology solution in NI (if it is possible), increase defence spending there (though you could argue not leaving would mean increase in police budget if there is civil disorder), compensate farmers, help hauliers get relevant driving permits, hire lawyers to change treaties/contracts... this is before you get to increased cost of nhs and social care staff due to people leaving (large proportion come from abroad - some EU, some rest of world).

Potential instant savings of £39 billion. That goes a long way.

Not so far when you consider the damage to your reputation caused by reneging on your debt and the impact that has on any deals.

{ I don’t think the border in the Irish Sea is very tenable with the DUP}
Well something HAS to give way at some point.
If people want to leave the EU some people are going to be disappointed. Statistically on this point, it is 16.8 Million in the UK including the majority in NI who wanted to remain, and how many DUP ?

No deal is soooooo much better than the bottom fucking we will get from any EU sanctioned 'deal'.
Is that clear enough for you?

Charming turn of phrase, yet oddly, unpersuasive.
Please don’t bother trying again.