With the prospect of Theresa May's Withdrawal Deal receiving enough support to pass through Parliament looking increasingly unlikely following the defeat of her first draft on January 15, certain Cabinet ministers are now reportedly in favour of a "managed no deal".

The difficulty for supporters and opponents of a "managed no deal" is predicting what that world would actually look like, because what happens is dependent on a complex mish-mash of political, legal and technical decisions that both sides currently don’t want to talk about honestly.

Remainers warn of logistical Armageddon as Kent becomes a lorry park and the supermarket shelves go empty; while at the other end of the spectrum, clean-break Brexiteers suggest the EU can be paid for a one-year transition period to give the UK the chance to prepare to trade smoothly on WTO Rules. The messy truth will lie somewhere in between.

The difficulty with "no deal"

The fundamental problem with "no deal" is that in the absence of a Withdrawal Agreement under Article 50 there is no legal basis for a smooth exit.

The status quo transition period that Brexiteers imagine "buying" off the EU is a unique creation that is made possible by Article 50 which acts as a bridge to a future relationship with a departing member state. Transition does not legally exist without a Withdrawal Agreement.