Talk:No-deal Brexit

no-deal Brexit and/or no Brexit deal
I believe no-deal Brexit means no Brexit deal and vice-versa. At least we can found both spellings in newspapers, for instance: "No Brexit deal in sight as British PM Boris Johnson meets with top EU officials".

What would be the grammatical reason to spell it in one way rather than the other one?
 * I read no-deal Brexit as the event of UK exiting EU without a deal ... No Brexit deal is context of no deal being agreed which can lead to a number of places such as election, referendu, more talks, alternate deals discussions, deadline extentions .... perhaps even a no-deal Brexit. So I dont read these the same nor shoud the article be changed toward that viewpoint.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, they have two completely different meanings. You could say, for instance: "with no Brexit deal having been ratified yet, a no-deal Brexit on 31 October would only be avoided if the Article 50 extension request is accepted. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * or "with no Brexit deal having been ratified yet, would a no-deal Brexit on 31 October be legal if the Article 50 extension request is not accepted?''" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.209.1 (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and the answer is to that question is "yes"! If the request is rejected, a no-deal Brexit will occur on the 31 October unless, I think, the UK withdraws its Article 50 request to leave the EU - in which case it would stay a full member under its existing terms. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes... a no-deal Brexit on 31 October could be legal if it complies with the Benn act? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.208.98 (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If people don't understand This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. not how to sign can the please read and understand how to use Wikipedia before trying to contribute. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

"No-deal Brexit (redirects)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect No-deal Brexit (redirects). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

What is a "no-deal Brexit"?
"A no-deal Brexit... *was* the potential withdrawal of the UK from the European Union without a withdrawal agreement"

So says the intro to this article. However, news outlets throughout the world continue to refer to the possibility of a no-deal Brexit. Which means, no *trade* deal being reached between the UK and EU.

By the logic of this article, if there is no trade deal, which is very possible, a no-deal Brexit has been avoided, because a withdrawal agreement was previously reached. This makes absolutely no sense.

I think a 'no-deal Brexit' *means* that no withdrawal agreement was achieved (which is false) *and* no trade deal was reached at the end of the WA period (which may turn out to be true or false). Only when both of these conditions are met will it be a no-deal Brexit. Tewdar (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that "no-deal" is also used to refer to the possible of no trade deal prior to the end of the transitions period, and that this article needs to reflect that. However, you logic seems wrong, instead a no-deal is avoided if there is both a withdrawal agreement, and a trade deal (i.e. two cliff edges). With regards to how to organise this article, a suggestion would be to have every section describe what the ramifications in that topic would be without a trade deal, and what was avoided because there is a withdrawal agreement. ― Hebsen (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there were/are two deals in play: the withdrawal deal and the trade deal. A deal was agreed and contracted by treaty on the withdrawal agreement, a trade deal is very much in jeopardy. We could have two articles of course, but the consequences of failure to reach a deal is pretty much the same in both cases. So, Tewdar, I'm afraid your opinion doesn't count – unless of course the UK government decides, having failed to reach a trade deal, that it will denounce the withdrawal agreement. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * My 'opinion' doesn't count? Okay, how about:


 * https://amp.ft.com/content/46087061-3fa7-4bd2-9f0d-d130fa58a409


 * Or


 * https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/no-deal-brexit-what-means-might-happen-affect-uk-life/amp/


 * Or


 * https://www.theweek.co.uk/fact-check/95547/fact-check-what-a-no-deal-brexit-really-means?amp


 * Or


 * https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54128960


 * Or


 * https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2020/09/no-deal-brexit-now-inevitable


 * Even Wikipedia's own https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit_withdrawal_agreement article does not agree with this article!


 * Are these opinions valid? Or should they change their opinions to align themselves with Wikipedia's no deal Brexit article? Tewdar (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Brexit has already occurred, and with an agreement. In other words, a no-deal Brexit was avoided, and that is a historical fact.
 * However, the term "no-deal Brexit" has been coined again, but this time with reference to the post-Brexit trade deal. It is a totally different subject, so should, logically, be the subject of a totally different article. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * However, the term "no-deal Brexit" has been coined again, but this time with reference to the post-Brexit trade deal. It is a totally different subject, so should, logically, be the subject of a totally different article. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

So, no-deal Brexit was avoided forever because of the WA, and no-trade deal Brexit (which everybody is calling 'no-deal Brexit' too) may or may not be avoided, and there might need to be another article for that, possibly with the name 'no-trade deal Brexit'.

Well, I'm happy with that. Tewdar (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As the clock ticks down and sabres get rattled louder, "no trade deal" does seem increasingly probable. You just volunteered to write it! (It can't be called "no trade deal Brexit" because Brexit has already happened. But perhaps the easiest way would be to add a new section to the Negotiations article? (and improve the hatnote to this article to make clear that it describes an historical event, not a current one). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , except that as Brexit has already occurred, it's not a "no-trade deal Brexit", it's simply no trade deal between the UK and the EU. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

"You just volunteered to write it!" - I, uh, cough, um, er... you know what, great article guys, totally makes sense to me now, oh, sorry, gotta go now, very busy, bye... Tewdar (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

(looking over shoulder while running away) BTW, "no-trade deal Brexit" is what Reuters are calling it... Tewdar (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

And RTE... and BBC... and Business Insider... and The Times... and the London School of Economics... all call it a potential "no-trade deal Brexit"

They don't seem to be troubled by the fact that Brexit already happened...Tewdar (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)