political response

Brexit: What would 'no deal' look like?

When looking for an article, I was searching through CNN politics for something that appealed to me. All I could find was healthcare, healthcare, healthcare. I didn't want to write about healthcare, and, moreover, I didn't want to write about Trump, so CNN wasn't much help. Then I turned to BBC and looked in their US politics section. Still, all I found was healthcare and Trump. I decided that if I were to write about something that wasn't healthcare or Trump, I would have to leave the US. So I did. I looked in UK politics, and that was how I wound up with an article about the Article 50 negotiations.
Simply put, the Article 50 negotiations are the negotiations taking place in the UK after Brexit. There are three main issues that need to be addressed. They are:

1. The Exit Agreement. This is outstanding payments and relocation of EU bases that were in the UK. Technical stuff.
2. Trade agreements. This article states that "It is not yet clear whether trade will feature in the Article 50 talks," but trade agreements would talk about how leaving the EU would cause trade problems.
3. Transition Agreement. The UK wants to be gone by March 2019, or, the bare minimum of the Article 50 time frame. But the Prime minister says, "No one wants a cliff hanger," and that she would prefer a "phased process of implementation." I would have to do a little more research to be able to explain this fully.

A lack of agreement in the Article 50 negotiations would basically mean full separation, or, as BBC put it, "red tape." Passports would be required. A license to trade in other countries would be needed for each individual country; an EU license would no longer work. They would fall back onto World Trade Organization policies. Passporting agencies in London that could once operate around all of the EU (channeling lots of money into London) would suddenly be confined to London. They would lose free trading rights with their biggest trade partner: Ireland. In short, the UK would lose €60bn should a "no deal" scenario happen.

It is too soon to know what the UK and the EU will do, but I am sure that a "no deal" scenario would wreak havoc on both parties. They will both lose money, trading opportunities, and straight-up convenience. What I believe is that a deal will be made, but it may take the full two years. Neither party really wants a "no deal," but neither party wants to bend either. And I do think that if the UK is unhappy with the terms, they will walk away before they agree to it, no matter the consequences. And I think that this will cause issues in the future that the UK is not able to see, because they may need those advantages the EU can give them in the future, and they won't have them.