Cocha

Either goods pile up on either side of the Channel, or nods, winks, oversights etc are 'ignored' to keep things moving whilst everyone gets up to speed with the new rules, systems and paperwork etc, based I assume on WTO.

Again though, rather than UK companies currently relying on imports moving to the EU, wouldn't it make more sense to find alternatives, substitutes or UK/ROW sources to supply instead? I did this with regards to a Latvian supplier ahead of the original "leave" date, getting a UK source to increase capacity to enable them to meet our full requirements instead. This was pretty small potatoes in the bigger scheme of things, but I can't help but think many other manufacturers dependent currently on EU supply chains won't find it more cost effective to resource etc, rather than up sticks and relocate to the EU.

So the stalemate (as such) will be broken by UK exporters moving to the EU? Would the same not follow for EU exporters to move to the UK?

But say, an Italian supplier doesn't care whether suppliers in any of the other 26 countries gets their goods through or not, they care only for their own and getting paid for them. This will be the same situation for all the exporters across the EU. Until goods flow again, no one is getting paid on either side of the Channel and neither the UK or the EU can afford this situation to last long.

But surely this works both ways? Both the UK and EU will be attempting to export. If this is prevented, then goods sit on either side of the Channel with neither UK nor EU suppliers getting paid. That is a deadlock which cannot last long, before the pressures to "do something" become greater than the pressures to follow protocol?

So if the UK stand firm on refusing LPF and CFP and the EU stand firm on retaining them, and this is still the case come 1st Jan, what happens?

Cheers, will do.

That nothing is agreed between the UK and EU and thus trade reverts to whatever laws this defaults to.

Like I said in my previous post, without a crystal ball, no one can give any timescales. I'm not entirely sure what your opinion is, I was merely stating my opinion that both sides cannot "win" in an agreed deal currently, therefore Boris either agrees a "bad" deal, or we leave with no deal.

If we leave with no deal, then negotiation is unlikely to stop and depending how the UK and EU are affected will change the power dynamic of the negotiations. Without a crystal ball, I can't give any time scale, but I believe in order for trade to be facilitated, certain things will be overlooked or waved through initially if needed and then tightened up on. I can't see there being a defining moment or date as such, just agreements made as the tangible issues arise and thus targeted. Currently, no one can say with certainty what will happen a day, a week, a month, a year out from a no deal, it needs to happen for this to occur. Then action taken in response.

I don't think a deal can be agreed which will allow both sides to walk away with face saved. Barnier needs a LPF and retained rights on fishing to "win". Boris cannot allow either of these to "win". Any compromise and both "lose". No deal will affect the UK and EU, so for me, that is the best outcome from here and negotiations can then begin once a clearer picture of what no deal will actually mean for both sides.