Why does anybody talk about 'no deal'?

[Fluandseptember]

... when all it means is 'no deal on 31st Oct'. Come 1st Nov, whoever is in power would be hot-footing it to Brussels to start the whole negotiating process again.

And the WA is not actually a deal either.

It’s confusing that so many are talking about “No Deal” as though it is one of the possible deals. (As in “The referendum vote wasn’t for no deal.”) That just makes no sense.

However, post-exit negotiations will be a completely different beast to pre-exit negotiations and the deal we have secured (or not) at the point of exit. So I’m not sure I follow your OP, really.

WA is one deal. BJ's imaginary one is (supposedly) another. And I guess a post-exit one might be different again. Still all deals.

The 'no deal' rhetoric seems to suggest that we'll just wander off into the sunset on the 31st and that will be that. There doesn't seem to be any understanding that it won't even be the beginning, and that a deal will still have to be struck.

No deal means we have no deal at the point of exit. What do you think it means?

It doesn’t mean we won’t then have a huge problem on our hands, having crashed out, but it’s still not a deal.

WA is one deal

But it's not. And neither will BJ's be one. Trade deals take a long time. At best we could get a vague separation agreement. Better than crash out insanity but not a deal.