Thread by @TheScepticIsle

Our EU membership is due to end on March 2019. Calling for 'no deal' preparations to kick in immediately as if anything signficant can be done to mitigage the worse consequences is misguided. It's far too late now.

Planning for 'no deal' would've meant implementing Charlie Elphicke's proposals in “Ready on Day 1”, inc/ investment in the road network approaching Dover, widening the M20, building the new Lower Thames crossing & giving the green light to the cancelled lorry park off the M20

Consider the barriers we face in getting a new railway, road or runway built, and think about whether we’re ready to deal with a total breakdown in trade relations with the EU or can be prepared by March.

Come on now.

After consultation Highways England may submit a planning application for the cancelled lorry park in 2019. One lorry park, and all the delays! Clearly the necessary physical infrastructure is hardly going to be ready if we suddenly kick into action now.

16,000 lorrys a day pass through the ports and Eurotunnel. The delays caused by the sudden necessity for border checks is going to be a very serious problem. Eurotunnel have warned us. Do we believe them or John Redwood who knows literally nothing? theguardian.com/politics/2018/…

For Brexit to work there must be an comprehensive economic partnership and a transition period. We cannot just flick the switch off and have the entire system on which UK-EU trade is based expire. Contemplating this is an act of supreme complacency.

Neither side is prepared for the fallout of “no deal”. The principle of Mutually Assured Destruction should apply, but that requires rational players in negotaitions, and there has been an outbreak of irrationality .

Major disruption in exports to the UK would hit our European trading partners hard. Loss of access to the City will have a major impact. The economic damage would be contagious. Meanwhile, Britain would be in dire straits.

This is a good way of inducing a recession if there ever was one.

The problem is that advocates of 'no deal' think it means swashbuckling free trade- less rules, less regulation, just buy buy buy sell sell sell. Nothing seems to shake this conviction. The testimony of trade wonks, economists, people who actually work in our ports & Eurotunne...

All close trading partnerships necessarily have a complex legal foundation that make trade "frictionless". In the Single Market, border checks have been eliminated because there are common rules and common enforcement.

So a "no deal’ scenario does not make trade more free. It is like flipping the main switch in your fuse box to "off". Treaties cease to apply, our system of trade and cooperation with the EU collapses. Trade barriers arise.

Britain suddenyl becomes a "third country" and faces the same rules as any other third country. Our goods lose export approval and face checks, inspections and testing. This will be economically jarring to say the least.

The idea that we can do without a trade agreement is based on the theory that tariffs are no big deal and the EU won’t put up barriers to trade because it would be an act of self-harm. The truth is more complex.

The WTO prevents countries discriminating between their trading partners. If you raise or lower tariffs for one nation you must do so for all WTO members. This is the principle of “most favoured nation” treatment.

Thus, when imposing tariffs on the UK, the EU is following the rules of the WTO.

Those WTO rules the 'no deal' kamikaze Leavers champion all the time

If the UK opted to impose retaliatory tariffs on imports from the EU, WTO anti-discrimination rules would require us to impose the same tariffs on all of our trading partners.

IN any case, as i've said, the real issue is the non-tariff barriers

The point here is clear. A 'no deal' scenario is in no way desirable. I think that Brexiteers pushing for it are taking a real risk not only with their own reputations and careers & the UK economy & the Tory Party's electoral prospects - but for Brexit itself.

If there is no deal reached in the Autumn it's all gonna kick off. The warnings about the perils of 'no deal' are going to intensify, spook the public and spook the government. There is then a good chance they will seek an extension to Article 50 negotiations to prevent 'no deal'

Would the EU agree? I think so, for self preservation reasons as much as anything. The UK would fare worse, but the EU cannot afford a 'no deal' either.

As Mark Carney has warned, it is a serious risk to the EU's financial system, as the UK is the banker of Europe. theguardian.com/business/2018/…

It will hit our main trading partners very hard indeed, and such an economic hit could cause the contagion of recession to spread across the Continent.

Dutch exports to the United Kingdom amount to over £41 Billion, 9.5 per cent of its exports. The UK is the Netherlands' third most important market with the global hub port of Rotterdam receiving a huge amount of business from the UK. Can they afford for this to be disrupted?

For Ireland the UK is their second most important market that accounts for 12.7 per cent of its overall exports and is worth over £13 Billion.

Spain’s exports to the UK amount to nearly £17 billion, accounting for 7.5 per cent of overall exports

For France the UK accounts for 7.1 per cent of their exports to the tune of around £28 Billion

Germany's exports amount to nearly £80 Billion

For Poland we represent 6.6 per cent of their overall exports as their second most important market worth over £10 Billion

You get the point. Each takes a hit - and the EU is not a single economy able to absorb it as one. NO i'm not AT ALL saying 'they need us more than we need them' - i'm saying this is a situation no one can afford and no one should contemplate.

A country as economically fragile as Italy needs to lose easy access to its fourth most important market like it needs a hole in the head. The UK is also the fourth most important export market for Portugal, the Czech Republic, Belgium and Sweden.

So yes, I think an extension would be granted.

Then a second referendum becomes very possible practically and far more likely politically, and Brexit itself is brought into question.

This is what 'no deal' Brexiteers are risking.

Is risking either being the source of a potential Europe wide political and economic crisis damaging our reputation and alliances for some time to come. Or risking Brexit being reversed really a risk they want to take?

Here we go. This is going to knock the complacency about 'no deal' out of the public perception. Brexiteers expect them to adopt the 'blitz spirit' or blame the EU, I think they'll get spooked & turn against 'no deal', even Brexit itself. thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/p…

A large proportion of the public, the pragmatic ones - crossing old Remain/Leave lines are going to ask just what on Earth is going on, what is the government doing etc Yes many may resent the EU but doesn't mean they'll happily take this leap

thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/p…

FFS. I mean, really? Brexit has been reduced to Duck and Cover? We have parliamentarians openly calling for a scenario which poses dramatic risks to our economy & the livelihood of all but the rich. They think there won't be a price for this politically?

We have the loons openly saying that extending Article 50 or reversing Brexit will mean riots in the street and the Far Right on the march (with a weird glint in their eye) but they think there will be no backlash in a 'no deal' situation?