Thread by @Usherwood

Why you don't hear about 'no deal is better than a bad deal' nearly so much these days:

1/

Back in good old days of 2016/17, lots of senior HMG ppl rolled out this line

2/

Now, it's confined to backbenches and even talk of contingencies for no deal is rare (cf DD at Parliament y'day)

But why is this?

3/

Firstly, evident that wasn't used in earnest by some. Sounds tough, but is essentially meaningless, since 'bad deal' was never defined

4/

So a degree of 'this is the kind of thing one says in such situations to show you're not a pushover' about it

5/

Secondly, also clear that some ppl have changed their minds As costs of no deal have come into focus, desire for a deal has risen

6/

This also reflects some more clarity about what future relations can be like and how that fits w process in train

7/

Thirdly, also some more understanding that process rolls on past March 19, with transition leaving more flexible time in which to hammer things out, so why throw that away?

8/

Everyone can see things are tricky now, so why not go for a deal to create new space, where things might be less tricky?

9/

Finally, some realisation that trash-talking Art.50 might not be optimal route to getting heard in those same negotiations. Even if you disagree, there are degrees of nose-cutting-off

10/

Take it as realisation that Brexit isn't simply about domestic debate, but also something that involves EU27

11/

In sum, it's less common because its value seems ever less evident to anyone

/end