I am not suggesting plagues of frogs, all major businesses pulling out of the UK, and so on and so forth. In fact I do think many of the claims made by the remain camp are daft because they only look at the impact of a risk and not an estimated probability of it occurring: you need to consider both.

I am instead asking those who propose no-deal to make it as beneficial as possible. That means thinking about what could go wrong (e.g. shortage of medicine) and either taking action to mitigate it (buying fridges) or honestly accepting this is a risk we are knowingly taken.

Businesses do this all the time. So much so there is an international standard (ISO 31000), used in the US as well as the UK and he rest of the EU, which describes best practice for this. It is not some wild and weird thing we are trying to impose on no-deals out of hatred for the idea. It is normal, everyday common practice for managing change. If you went to a bank for a business loan to cover a major change, they would ask to see your business plan, part of that would normally include a risk register.


I assume you buy some forms of insurance - car, perhaps, or house. The price of those is set through this sot of mechanism. They estimate as best they can the possible risks (theft, etc), look at things that mitigate them (lockable garage? burglar alarm?) and set the price accordingly.