Yet another letter about Brexit - to my MP

We have all heard, for months now, the government's assertion that "no Brexit deal is better than a bad deal" but we've heard little serious discussion of what "no deal" might entail.

We're assured that walking out is an essential negotiating tactic, but never how it might apply in this case.  If you walk out and thereby return to the status quo ante, it could certainly be reasonable - nothing lost but time and perhaps a bit of good will - but that's not the situation Mrs May finds herself in.  Triggering Article 50 has started a process which she claims (correctly or not) cannot be reversed, and which can only be paused with the agreement of the other 27.

And then, what exactly is Mrs May ready to walk out of?  The Article 50 process, as well as tending inexorably to a defined end, allows for the production of a "framework for [the withdrawing country's] future relationship with the Union".  This framework might in the end be as much as the recent political agreement between Japan and the EU, perhaps leading to a full trade agreement in a couple of years time, or it might simply be a set of holding principles and arrangements to enter an interim or transition period which is then intended to produce a full trade deal.

Article 50's intended output is an agreement on "arrangements for [the withdrawing country's] withdrawal", which is why there's such emphasis on settling the accounts and establishing the rights of those who are based in a country other than their own.  Yet the only thing most of the media and - it seems - MPs seem to be concerned with is the trade deal or WTO question.

There's a time limit on Article 50 - the famous two years, of which less than one remains before the ratification process would have to start - but trade negotiations can go on as long as it takes for the deal to be signed.  Or abandoned.

There are many other deals which might be required, depending on how completely Mrs May intends to allow us to drift away.  Can we reconstruct a working relationship with Euratom, the REACH chemicals regime, the EMA medical regulator which we have led in while it was based in London?  To say nothing of the dozens of other decisions which must be addressed - on Europol, the European Arrest Warrant, cooperation on security using databases based on EU data protection regulations (which we are currently proposing to implement), but resting on a bed of law overseen by the ECJ.  Who is going to certify that UK aeroplanes are fit to fly?  And what legal and logistical arrangements will we make for planes, people and goods to land somewhere else?

Which of these perhaps dozens of deals is Mrs May telling us we can do without?  All of them?  Just the odd one that's a problem?  Would she countenance walking out of talks with Euratom and staying with the rest, or fall in with Balpa's reminder today that "UK airlines could find they have to stop flying...  And this would impact passengers long before March 2019 because airlines couldn't sell advance tickets and, frankly, would passengers risk buying them?" while kissing a trade deal goodbye?

Lastly, if there is to be no deal in any of these areas, where are the preparations?  Where are the compulsory purchase orders for vehicle handling areas around Dover, the building projects for customs checks along the Irish border, the recruitment and training programmes for border, customs, regulatory, home office and many other staff that would be required?

The books might tell us it's good tactics to show yourself willing to walk away, and to keep your cards close to your chest.  But not if the people on the other side of the table begin to wonder if there's anything written on your cards, and can't believe you'd be stupid enough to engage in the self-harm of "no deal".

I'd like to know what your party managers are briefing you about this - what are the lines to take - but I imagine those really are cards you'll keep close to your chest.  Even more than that, I'd like to know your own feelings about the "no deal" issue.  Can you reassure me that I'm overly concerned, but without the standard "letter from MP" language which won't reassure anyone?