|1. An ongoing dispute over the UK's exit bill – how much the country will be liable for in outstanding cash it must pay to Europe.|
|2. Uncertainty and confusion over EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU, including tourists and short-term travellers as well as those living and working in the two areas.|
|3. Trading on terms set out by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is likely to mean the immediate imposition of tariffs across sectors, and there are questions over the legality of free trade agreements (FTA) agreed with non-EU countries by the EU.|
|4. A gap in regulation not covered by the Great Repeal Bill that would leave the UK likely "playing catch-up" to close these legal and regulatory gaps across sectors.|
|5. How the UK would participate in shared security policy.|
|6. The return of a customs border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Exiting the customs union without a deal in place means there would have to be some form of customs checking arrangement put into place.|
However, ministers have rallied to counter the report, saying the government has been making contingency plans.
"The government has repeatedly said that it will walk away from a 'bad' final deal. That makes preparing for 'no deal' all the more essential. Such preparation reinforces that stance. Last year, the committee described the government’s failure to plan for a Leave vote as an act of gross negligence. This government must not make a comparable mistake. "The Article 50 negotiations will hopefully be successful. There is a clear shared UK and EU interest in reaching agreement. Mutually assured damage is the alternative. The responsibility on the negotiators is substantial. But there is a real prospect that negotiations will fail. The government should therefore require each department to produce a 'no deal' plan identifying the likely consequences and making proposals, including guidance to individuals and businesses, to mitigate potential risks."