I've not yet understood why discussion is dismissed by either side as 'fear-mongering' it smacks of a rather weird and desperate stance that cannot abide open discussion.
Lord Bamford has made the same mistake you have in the previous few posts- your taking tiny examples as evidence of broader trends when to analyse how international trade cycles work you need to do the opposite. Its not about Congestion at ports, but international politics and economics of scale. Is there currently enough out there to replace the loss in value of the EU's trade? Arguably not, particularly with China's growing grip on Africa and Asia (Who as of today for instance are being treated by the UK as a geopolitical rival).
Also as i posted before this-
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/r...rade-m8025tqss
There is a major stumbling block for the UK to get its envisioned WTO trade plans. If this is not resolved, their will be a real problem. You mention nothing yet of finance, nor addressing this. Nor have you addressed just how in a 'no deal' brexit you can make the UK competitive given its existing structural constraints, without lowering living standards and purchasing power (Which is already comparatively abysmal compared to other developed nations). To see how brexit would work you look at the domestic situation (Which is poor at the moment) and then apply that to the context we're talking about. Brexit can work, and a no-deal can be mitigated somewhat if the UK have bothered to prepare...at all either before activating article 50, or at least over the past 2 years. The fact is we haven't.
Lets take a case-study though- how can British farmers stay competitive? And you imply you would let them die? I used to feel the same, but then you remember that agriculture and food production is considered a strategic industry, so before making decisions over this you need to assess is such a thing still relevant? Arguably in a world going into a protectionist phase again, its important to have something of a back-up, even if its not at all adequate. I agree UK farming though will need a major shake-up to have any remote chance of being competitive (The most obvious one is an increase in the size of cooperatives).
But the main point. Your not actually providing any evidence that would allay the political and economic hurdles that the UK has imposed upon itself due to the short time limit. Your arguing that we're all discussing some kind of 'doom' scenario that's all about 'fear', and if that makes you fearful i apologize. But what actually we're doing is discussing the current constraints the UK faces, criticizing the lack of action to overcome them and offering what we all feel may be the best way forward. Simply doing as you've done here spouting random 'feel good' evidence like a company giving a raise or making a sweeping statement based on Lord Bamfords article (who also does not take into account real-term geopolitics or economics- back is essentially a 'back in my day' piece) isn't really constructive.
It also is interesting though as the choice of language you use here has been exactly the same problem that the brexiteers have had- they have failed to create a stable sustainable majority post-referendum by merely falling back on 'fear mongering' accusations to all rival discussion, drumming up 'will of the people' (Which in the UK's political system is the weakest legitimizing factor you could rely on for long term policy, as again as discussed before, what happens 4 years down the line when Labour or the Conservatives offer rejoining the EU as part of their electoral manifesto? They politically can because no brexiteer bothered to create a clear consensus after they'd won the battle of the referendum). You are essentially here, still fighting that referendum perceiving us as needing to be either 'silenced' or 'convinced' of your argument, because of the lack of consensus building post-referendum. You don't need to- personally i find the whole process rather exciting politically and stand to gain a fair bit as a sleuth of academic jobs being readied for a post-brexit UK. But indeed, your stance is interesting here, as it also highlights just how constitutionally screwed the UK political sphere has become, and will remain for a decade or more due to the mess the government have made over the past 2 years of the process.
An interesting point though- given that a no-deal brexit (As with remain) will have political repercussions (As any hit to the economy or living standards- from brexit, or indeed from the UK's current dire performance due to its structural issues, weakened by the misapplication of austerity that then could and will be spun as 'brexit' by the government will have an electoral consequence), what will you do when people demand at the next GE a more pro-EU approach, or indeed EU membership? As a no-deal scenario is the guaranteed way (due to lack of preparation) to undermine brexit as a valid policy. It essentially will make EU membership the new political football as they'll be electoral gains to be made from blaming the Conservatives for a no-deal brexit and any subsequent issues (much as the Conservatives successfully spun the financial crash as being Labour's fault- political masterstroke), it makes brexit unstable as a policy. At best again we'll be back and forth and polarized for a decade or so, at worst, we'll end up in a few years time rejoining the EU and being forced to accept the euro and lose our opt-outs and vetos (A truly dire scenario for us).
So how will you Sharpe make a no-deal brexit politically sustainable over the next few years? How will you forge the consensus needed for it to stick and not become political football? And who do you see doing that? For instance if the Conservatives lose at the next GE (Which is a distinct possibility), do you expect Labour to stay 'brexited' (They may do, but only if Corbyn is still leader)? How do you see the Conservatives emerging from a 'no-deal' brexit as a still viable political force given the threats by Conservative 'soft brexiteers' and 'remainers' that they would resign the whip?
As here's the big issue, the way brexit has been conducted has essentially ensured it will continue to be a major political issue, years after its 'done'.
EDIT: Just so that i'm not accused of hypocrisy- and to further highlight my point about 'micro economics' being absolutely useless as a case for or against brexit:
https://www.theguardian.com/business...sjUD9Yk6lDBDnk
This is pro-remain, from a pro-remain paper- they are highlighting that Jaguar-Land Rover is axing 5000 jobs- due to the governments botched handling of brexit. However as i'm sure Sharpe's Company will be the first to point out (and correctly so), this is only one factor- Sales globally are down, we're again heading into a position of squeezed incomes both in the 'west' and now China is feeling it too. The developing world by the way are also heading for an economic crisis due to the their growth being fueled by easy access to cheap credit, both its sources- Europe and the US, and China- are both facing interest rate hikes and the potential generally for a recession (Hence why again a no-deal brexit in which we're expected to rely on the 'fastest growing' parts of the globe to pick up the significant EU slack is foolhardy and a pipe-dream at best given that China and the fastest growing economies (Brazil, Nigeria, India et al) are by all accounts heading into serious issues in the near future. Not a great strategy really if you want brexit to be 'sustainable'- hence why no deal is the worst option possible.
Anyway that tangent aside that we need to be aware of- this is why we can't rely on 'piecemeal' articles to make the sweeping case that 'remain is great' or 'no-deal is great' or whatever. It doesn't work. You need a broader analysis, otherwise we look silly by attributing everything (good or bad) to brexit without consideration of other factors.
So again big picture is key- you can either stick your head in the sand, pretend that developing countries are not starting to struggle, or that Russia and co are not mucking around with the UK's WTO schedules, or that as a consumer state we wield far less power in a no-deal scenario that those who were selling to us, or that the UK government has not at all prepared properly for said no-deal scenario, or that UK manufacturing will somehow thrive in competition with the US without sacrificing already fragile disposable incomes and purchasing power through the erosion of worker protections, or that the UK doesn't already have a very weak and fragile economy that is over-reliant on services, low skilled jobs and finance or that the UK will not be in a desperate position in the face of a no deal brexit, signing away significant parts of the British state (NHS for instance) to foreign competition that will not have a direct political impact electorally later on (I.e. the Conservative party punished rightly, and Labour riding in who in this context would face exactly the same difficulties, but now having promised nationalization potentially make things even more difficult).
Or...we could discuss these things, not stick our fingers in our ears, close our eyes and cry 'fear-mongering', but instead continue identifying the issues, how the government messed up in allowing them/not addressing them and what might be done ideally going forward. Something honestly everyone in this thread until now had done a sterling job, brexiteer, remainer or otherwise.
EDIT EDIT:
@All
A more general thing, but also to Sharpe. It appears that a 'No deal brexit' will not be off the table potentially even if May tries to run the clock down:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ng-brexit-deal
So if this passes (which given parliaments arithmetic it probably will) then that's at least one thing we can all sleep easier on. However, while its appropriate for this to be 'off the table' given the lack of preparation that the Conservatives have given to a 'no deal', it is also an admittance of failure at how negotiations have proceeded, highlighting the governments incompetence, but also giving a signal to the EU that we cannot walk away (and literally we can't). They already knew this of course given how they've negotiated and maintained the upper hand relatively easily, but its not great politics to have it slapped around so openly.