Thought I would share the below as there are some very cavalier attitudes towards a no deal scenario on this thread, and this Economist article encapsulates the opposite perspective well. --- The truth about a no-deal Brexit Time to bust the last great Brexit myth https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/11/24/the-truth-about-a-no-deal-brexit The British body politic is again convulsing. Theresa May has appointed new ministers, including her third Brexit secretary and counting, following another round of cabinet resignations. The prime minister’s own backbenchers are feverishly (if ineptly) plotting to bring her down. The Labour opposition’s position is hopelessly unclear. The cause of this chaos is that those with long-standing delusions about what Brexit would mean have been forced to swallow a dose of reality. With negotiating time almost up, Britain has the imperfect deal that it was always going to get. Promises of having cake and eating it have given way to a less appetising offering. Yet among Brexiteers, one hopeful fantasy lives on: the idea that, if all else fails, Britain can prosper outside the European Union without signing a deal at all. The idea’s proponents tout a no-deal Brexit as a way to avoid giving ground, or money, to Brussels. They dismiss objections as another round of the alarmist “Project Fear” that Remainers deployed before the referendum. They are gravely mistaken. It is time to debunk the last, and most dangerous, of the Brexit fantasies. The notion that Britain should leave the eu without agreeing on exit terms or paying its tab has gained currency. Perhaps two dozen Tory mps want such an outcome, now that a cake-and-eat-it deal is off the menu. Given the government’s wafer-thin majority, this small band has undue clout (see article). Assurances by level-headed ministers that Parliament would block a no-deal exit are constitutionally questionable. The public, meanwhile, are worryingly relaxed about no deal. Polls find that many voters would rather do a runner from the eu than accept the compromise that Mrs May has struck. The reality is that no deal amounts to a very bad deal, as our briefing this week spells out. It would rip up 45 years of arrangements with the continent that in living memory has gone from existential threat to vital ally. It would swap membership of the eu’s single market for the most bare-bones trading relationship possible. Reneging on £39bn ($50bn) in obligations to the eu would devastate Britain’s international credibility. Reaching no deal on the Irish border would test the Good Friday Agreement that ended a serious armed conflict. And the violent dislocation of nearly every legal arrangement between Britain and Europe would affect daily life like nothing outside wartime. The myth has taken hold that no deal simply means no trade deal. Proponents of a no-deal exit say it will involve Britain trading with the euon the standard terms used by other members of the World Trade Organisation (wto). No-dealers argue, correctly, that Britain could eventually adjust to this. It would be painful, but the economy could move beyond industries like carmaking, which would be ruined by the 10% tariffs that the eu would impose on British exports. Consumers would gain if the government took the highly unlikely step of abolishing all tariffs, as no-dealer economists recommend. But protected sectors, particularly agriculture, would wither. And many Leave-voters might be surprised that the price of exit was the collapse of much of Britain’s high-end manufacturing and the demise of farming. More important, no deal would mean not just no trade deal, but the rupture of a whole corpus of legal arrangements with the eu. Britain would be left without rules to govern the trade in radioactive materials, international electricity markets, financial-contract clearing, aviation, medicines regulation, immigration control and much else. What some Brexiteers describe as a “clean break” from Europe would in fact be horrifically messy. No-deal proponents counter that Britain and the eu would quickly sign side-deals to mitigate the worst of the chaos—allowing flights to carry stranded citizens home, for instance. But it is unlikely that the eu would do more than the minimum if Britain defaults on its debts. What little goodwill remains would turn to dust. Brexiteers say that shortages could be avoided if Britain threw its borders open to eu products without checks. But eschewing any sort of regulation would be an odd way for Britain to “take back control”, as the Leave campaign promised. If Mrs May wonders how this dire outcome has come to be more popular than her hard-won deal, she should start by re-reading her own speeches. Her mantra that “no deal is better than a bad deal” was supposed to persuade the eu to give Britain better terms. It didn’t work. But it struck a chord at home. David Davis, her first Brexit secretary, compared the talks to buying a house: “You don’t walk in and say, ‘I’m going to buy the house, now what’s the price?’ So why should it be any different in a big negotiation like this?” The answer is that not buying a house means sticking with the status quo, whereas not signing a Brexit deal means swapping the status quo for a new, very bad alternative. The house-buying analogy works only if the buyer has burned down their existing home and is negotiating to buy the only one on the market. Advocates of no deal brim with the same misplaced confidence with which they approached the Brexit talks. The grim warnings of what would happen after the referendum have turned out to be overblown, they point out. Britain has not fallen into recession, as Remainers forecast, though its performance relative to other advanced economies has declined. Might the impact of no deal turn out to be less bad than feared? Perhaps. But the disruption caused by an unmediated exit would be far more dramatic than the economic harm caused by the Brexit vote. The public cannot easily see what they have lost as a result of Britain’s slip from being the fastest-growing member of the g7 to one of the slowest. A no-deal Brexit, by contrast, could have highly visible effects. Essentials drying up, travellers stranded, motorways gridlocked: these things bring down governments and undermine faith in democratic politics. In 2000 Tony Blair’s administration was plunged into crisis when protesting lorry-drivers blockaded oil refineries. The protests lasted barely a week but still forced supermarkets to ration bread and milk, and the government to deploy army ambulances. It is hard to imagine any government surviving the chaos of a no-deal Brexit, let alone one as weak as Mrs May’s. So far the decision to quit the eu has slowed Britain down, rather than derailing it. Leaving with no deal, however, could result in a wreck. (This is the abbreviated leader article. There is a much more detailed briefing for those interested)
It won't have any effect, mate. I've posted similar stuff before and it either gets dismissed as more Project Fear, or just ignored for being too troubling to take on board. The government are due to publish their economic assessments of the various Brexit scenarios today - these will be ignored too. "Just tell 'em to **** off!"
Probably true, sadly. Perhaps if a true Brexiteer was closely involved in the negotiations, perhaps someone like David Davis, we'd be getting a much better deal. Looking at some of his remarks in recent years, surely he'd be very well placed to secure a good deal? "The idea that we’ll do a transitional arrangement where you’re still in, paying money, still with free movement of people – that we’ll do the long-term deal in slow motion … That is plainly not what we’re after" March 2016 "There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside" October 2016 "We're not really interested in a transition deal, but we'll consider one to be kind to the EU" November 2016 "I believe that we can get a free trade and customs agreement concluded before March 2019" January 2017 "Most of the EU states are very sympathetic to our view" May 2017
Out of interest Ellers, what would you think of a poster who responded to any pro-Brexit post with just the words "Project delusional fantasty", without further explanation?
I accept there is a need for cool impartial look at the pros and cons of a no-deal Brexit. It's long overdue. But The Economist has never been objective about Brexit. It was fanatically Remain. If you don't believe me, have a look at his: https://www.economist.com/britain/2016/06/15/the-economists-guide-to-britains-eu-referendum So please forgive me if I don't pay any attention to one-sided arguments about no-deal. Economists (and the CBI and Treasury "experts" (sorry!) ...have been wrong about the ERM, the Euro, the apocalypse that would follow a Leave success in 2016. They haven't got a clue. They can input their views into a balanced debate like anyone else, but little more than that. There is one thing I'm certain about. If we decided to go no-deal, the EU would be back at the negotiating table quicker than Junckers can sink a bottle of Premier Cru Bordeaux, because they need the $39bn soon to fill the gaping hole in their budget (on a no-deal, we would not necessarily renege on all of it, but challenge amounts due and payments would be delayed), and the delicate state of some of their economies cannot afford to take the hit to their exports sales to the UK that no-deal might bring. And I think they would drop the indefinite element of the backstop demand - which would make May's deal acceptable
I like picture of the train going over cliff. I haven’t seen that cliff image before. The only thing it forgot to mention is that after Brexit in 20 years every child born with the letters EU in their name will be born blind. Or maybe I should predict the economy in 30 years time like how some people can. It’s just a shame they got the 6 month prediction wrong.
Happy to accept, of course, that the Economist has its own bias, as do all publications and individuals. The bias of a source, however, isn't a good enough excuse to dismiss any argument out of hand. If we all took that attitude to the nth degree, there would be no room for discussion whatsoever... [I suppose, at points, that is indeed what this thread becomes]. Re your second paragraph, you seem to be arguing that because 'no deal' would have such a negative impact on the EU, they would quickly want to negotiate a better deal with us? Do correct me if I've misinterpreted that. I do agree that 'no deal' would be negative for the EU. The flip side to that is that it is likely that 'no deal' will have a far greater impact on the vastly smaller trading partner (the UK), especially as we have no trade deals lined up with other economies. If it hits us more than the EU, then we will be just as keen to negotiate a deal quickly, and in a weaker position than we are today... ...what I don't understand is why those unhappy with May's deal aren't instead pushing for an A50 extension with time to try and achieve a 'better' deal, and are so brash about the downsides of no-deal?
I have explained my side of the argument for 2 years and was told on many occasions I was talking rubbish. However if you want to go back over this thread you will see I have been spot on many times. Not bad for someone who was ‘talking rubbish’. All that is happening now are desperate attempts to scare people. Sadly the remain camp played that card and failed. Goldie’s post was spot on. Tbh the remain camp are probably the reason why we decided to leave because voters like me who were 50/50 were threatened with project fear and rebelled against it. Maybe you should concentrate your posts to their failings rather than bash leavers at every opportunity.
The EU won't negotiate a better deal (except changes around the fringes) unless there is BIG pressure. Article 50 extension would do the opposite and they would stay smug. If we start seriously preparing for a no-deal, that will make them sit up. They will ask what is wrong with the deal on the table, and we will tell them it's the indefinite nature of the backstop. I simply don't believe they would sacrifice payment of £39bn and huge amounts of trade on this issue for that. There'll be some compromise to put an end date, after which the UK can unilaterally leave the Customs Union. Then everyone is happy. We need a courageous politician to take this by the horns. May has been a disaster. She's treated the negotiations as friendly from the beginning - they never were, they were and are hostile. She may be an academic and have an impressive political antenna, but she is no businesswoman
I can appreciate the concern about an A50 extension reaffirming EU support for the current deal / status quo. I also agree that the EU would be very adversely impacted by a no-deal Brexit. I think where we disagree, is that I simply don't see how the likely more negative impact on the UK strengthens our position, and if anything I worry it would weaken it. Putting myself into a 'hard' leavers shoes, I'd still aim for a one year A50 extension, spend the year planning properly for a no-deal Brexit [which I think we can agree hasn't been done yet] and revisiting the threat of a no-deal situation once we're more fully prepared, and therefore have more weight behind the threat. You never know, if/when May's vote is defeated, the EU may provide a date we can unilaterally leave and the whole thing will be academic.
I hope you're right about the EU looking again at the backstop if/when May is defeated. That would solve all problems. On the no-deal, you're right that there would be more disruption to the UK than other EU countries. But the difference is, we will get what the majority of voting public voted for in 2016, namely the return of sovereignty. We'll also get the interest on £39bn payment which will be delayed. For the EU countries, it's all pain and no gain.
I agree entirely that 'project feat' in the campaign backfired, and the remain campaign lacked much hope/vision, unlikely the extremely well run leave campaign. Equally, there were a number of 'leave' campaign promises that haven't quite been lived up to. I don't think that means either side shouldn't engage in the debate imo. Sorry you feel that others have always 'rubbished' you - but I think you shouldn't stoop to that level and should carry on engaging in the arguments you disagree with more fully!
Goldie can answer for himself however you forget to mention that we are the second biggest economy in the EU. I said recently that the Austrian PM said "losing the UK is like losing 19 EU countries". With all due respect to some people...the EU is full of crap countries that don't bring in much money and in some case need to be bailed out. Without our trade and money it will fall quicker than a French flag. Yes, it will hurt and I have said all along that it will be bumpy for a bit but we are resilient and will bounce back. If we say we are going with a no deal goldie was actually wrong.... they would be running after us quicker "than Junckers can sink a bottle of Premier Cru Bordeaux".
Certainly an interesting discussion - and would be good to explore how far that feeling of returned sovereignty will weight up against the "more disruption" to the UK once it's reality and not theory. Also further discussions needed about that £39bn, as it wasn't for nothing - and those lost benefits will be counted in the 'loss' column for us. Interesting chat, but need to crack on with work for the moment...
Second, or third, depending on which measure one uses. Just to be a pedant! I entirely agree, as outlined, that they would not feel 'no pain'. The problem is, it's the total EU economy we need to measure up against, not just individual developing [my preferred term!] countries.
