Brexit Referendum Superthread

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

Nor is your opinion that abandoning Hinkley Point will bring about the collapse of EDF.

Not collapse - but that it would put it in a situation whereby it could not survive without heavy assistance from the State and would endanger the French nuclear industry certainly is a very widespread one in France and seems to be the one of the one of the French president, who said this about the project:

"Il est très important de faire comprendre que nous avons besoin d'avoir une industrie nucléaire qui soit de haute performance, de haute sûreté en France, et que nous ne pouvons pas laisser, non plus à l'exportation, d'autres venir sur des terrains qui, jusqu'à présent, pouvaient être français"

http://www.challenges.fr/challenges-soir/20160517.CHA9235/edf-pourquoi-hollande-reaffirme-son-soutien-a-hinkley-point.html

Also the FT correspondent in Paris has suggested this could be used as leverage against Hollande:

https://twitter.com/ChassNews/status/758961014297591808

With the previous in-depth analysis (in French) I habve posted upon request of another poster ... this is starting to be a lot of converging ideas.

Lemming

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's a fair point but when those who voted for Brexit see that what they were promised was never actually an option then it'll be too late. I work in science which has already taken a hit from Brexit. I do think the EEA option is the best thing to hope for now but, as Lemming has said, tell that to the farmers who were concerned about too many immigrants while expecting the Tories to match their subsidy.

These would also be the same Farmers who rely on cheap farm labour, predominantly Eastern European.

Nody

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's a good way to look at it. The Adam Smith Institute, a libertarian think tank argued for Brexit and now favours the EEA option which will necessitate a contribution to the Brussels coffers, free movement and full EU regulation with no input in any of them after the negotiations. The Brexit voters will naturally be livid if this happens but it's the best scenario short of delaying Brexit indefinitely.

EEA has pretty much zero chance of happening; Norway etc. are highly likely to veto it (UK would get to much influence among the non EU countries) and EEA requires 100% agreement. They could get a non EEA deal but that would be limited to Europe only.

Lemming

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know how realistic it is to hope that the UK remains in the EU. If it is at all possible then I think it would only happen if we step close enough to the economic precipice for people to see how disastrous Brexit would be.

Just to come back to this: I think it's entirely possible that the UK will remain in the EU. But I also don't expect such a scenario to happen until the country has been brought to the brink of that precipe so that the 52% can truly appreciate the magnitude of folly.

We've already had the "experts that everyone is sick of" proven right in so much as the economy already taking a kicking with depressing projections already looking likely to happen with the publishing of PMI reports. And still people are willy-waving bottles of HP sauce and Union-flag bowler hats like it's the greatest thing ever. We've just had what is no doubt to be the first of many genuine and alarmingly credible warning shots across the bow by big, BIG regional employers and yet the people are still dancing in the streets, of said regions standing to see mass unemployment no less, whilst shouting at anyone who is foreign and/or not white to "go home". We are a long way from realisation by the 52% that they've been lied to (on foot of all of the evidence of same that came out in the wash after the vote that they were lied to).

Most people cannot grasp economic reports or projections by businesses, or even newspaper revelations that they were duped into voting any which way. What they grasp is in-your-face job losses. It will only be when the country starts to see mass job losses coupled with the inevitable reality that EU exit negotiations are not going well that we'll get that sea-change in the general population or we'll see government MPs grow a back-bone and give their constituents a verbal dose of reality-slapping.; whichever comes first.

I live in one of the most 'Leave' cities there was in the UK.

There has been zero change in sentiment, and I mean zero, since the vote. If anything the 'Remain' elements have subsided and are now pragmatically looking towards the 'best step possible outside the EU'.

'It's the Economy Stupid' isn't at play here. The material effects of the Referendum and the move to leave will not be felt soon enough for people who voted 'Leave' without full consideration of the effects to link them.

Job losses due to a company folding in January won't be linked to the deal that they couldn't get signed because of the Brexit uncertainty by anyone who wasn't aware of the ramifications beforehand.
BoE cutting interest rates to spur the economy? What does that change for Nigel in Leeds?
Sterling falling vs EUR and USD? My shopping wasn't any more expensive this week, what's that got to do with me?

If we're saying that some of the referendum result came about as a result of some economic illiteracy, why are we expecting those self-same illiterates to have become exercised by the vote to the extent that they have now become educated on economic issues and begin to link things that they were unable to before.

Laura Kuenssberg's 'The Battle for Britain' was fairly illuminating and I would recommend it to anyone interested in what happens next. It provides a good overview of some of the main factors that effected the result, and some of the problems with how the debates were framed and importantly not-framed. It makes little effort to go into what this means now, but it is very useful to understand how exactly we got here.

Some Remainers will indeed keep their finger on the pulse and note the effects on the State, confirmation bias will also obviously be at play here too as everything and anything negative that occurs whatsoever will be attributed to the vote. Every 'I told you so' will become more grating than the previous. I personally think that any effort to continually batter people with this message (which I can see coming) will have almost exactly the opposite effect than it was hoped for. (See video RE: Obama's quote)

There will be some in the 'Leave' camp, who are willing to bear the costs of Brexit and so who won't particularly be too upset by the upcoming recession and difficulties. They assessed the situation and believe (though I disagree) that the short term pain will benefit the country in the long run.

There will be some in the 'Leave' camp who are going to spin every single negative into a 'it's their fault', which is what they have been doing for a long, long time anyway, so I can't see them stopping now! Prepare yourself for the statements regarding BoE's cut being a move to somehow vindicate (and indeed cause) their earlier predictions. Prepare yourself for the 'EU is purposely doing things to make Brexit look worse than it should be' statements in the face of perfectly predictable and warranted moves by EU member states to protect their interests.

The rest of the country will pretty much just get on with it though.

The entrenchment issues are going to get worse imo. And the confirmation biases will only compound themselves.

lucat

IT article today on the next steps for Ireland. Worth a read: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/john-fitzgerald-negotiating-table-with-uk-reversed-by-brexit-1.2752831

ancapailldorcha

Lemming wrote: »

Just to come back to this: I think it's entirely possible that the UK will remain in the EU. But I also don't expect such a scenario to happen until the country has been brought to the brink of that precipe so that the 52% can truly appreciate the magnitude of folly.

We've already had the "experts that everyone is sick of" proven right in so much as the economy already taking a kicking with depressing projections already looking likely to happen with the publishing of PMI reports. And still people are willy-waving bottles of HP sauce and Union-flag bowler hats like it's the greatest thing ever. We've just had what is no doubt to be the first of many genuine and alarmingly credible warning shots across the bow by big, BIG regional employers and yet the people are still dancing in the streets, of said regions standing to see mass unemployment no less, whilst shouting at anyone who is foreign and/or not white to "go home". We are a long way from realisation by the 52% that they've been lied to (on foot of all of the evidence of same that came out in the wash after the vote that they were lied to).

Most people cannot grasp economic reports or projections by businesses, or even newspaper revelations that they were duped into voting any which way. What they grasp is in-your-face job losses. It will only be when the country starts to see mass job losses coupled with the inevitable reality that EU exit negotiations are not going well that we'll get that sea-change in the general population or we'll see government MPs grow a back-bone and give their constituents a verbal dose of reality-slapping.; whichever comes first.

This is the worrying thing though. Take Nissan in Sunderland. According to Wikipedia, they employ 4,500 people. Sunderland voted leave. I think that it is fair to say that some of that 4,500 voted that way as well. My question is, taking this example, how far would Nissan have to go before it's staff see the problem? Would they have to make a formal announcement that they're looking at other sites? Would that suffice? Or would they have to cross the Rubicon and announce closure? How much damage would have to be done before people see that they were sold a pup by Farage, Johnson, Wolfson, Aaronovitch et al?

Then there is the conundrum of EEA/EFTA membership. As was noted above, other countries would likely veto that option as the UK is disproportionately large. Setting that aside and assuming that that bid is successful, would there be a referendum on it as it would require free movement, regulation and a financial "fee"?

Ta for that link, Vivian Little Cheddar. I'll give it a watch later. Not sure why I opted for Family Guy reruns instead in hindsight...

Jaggo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is the worrying thing though. Take Nissan in Sunderland. According to Wikipedia, they employ 4,500 people. Sunderland voted leave. I think that it is fair to say that some of that 4,500 voted that way as well. My question is, taking this example, how far would Nissan have to go before it's staff see the problem? Would they have to make a formal announcement that they're looking at other sites? Would that suffice? Or would they have to cross the Rubicon and announce closure? How much damage would have to be done before people see that they were sold a pup by Farage, Johnson, Wolfson, Aaronovitch et al?

Then there is the conundrum of EEA/EFTA membership. As was noted above, other countries would likely veto that option as the UK is disproportionately large. Setting that aside and assuming that that bid is successful, would there be a referendum on it as it would require free movement, regulation and a financial "fee"?

Ta for that link, Vivian Little Cheddar. I'll give it a watch later. Not sure why I opted for Family Guy reruns instead in hindsight...

I think Nissan run a beauty contests between its various factories to see which gets awarded the contracts for the production of new models of cars. The next one is due late 2017 early 2018. It is unlikely that trade/tariff negotiations will be completed by then. The Sunderland plant could lose out to the Spanish or French plants. While 4,500 work directly for Nissan, it is estimated that 45,000 jobs in the region are indirectly dependent on it.

The same problems with the EEA also exist with the WTO. All members can veto Britain's membership of the WTO including the likes of Russia or anyone else with an ax to grind. Even worse could be the effect on Britain's negotiating position in Trade talks when any country can hold Britain hostage over WTO entry.

ancapailldorcha

Jaggo wrote: »

I think Nissan run a beauty contests between its various factories to see which gets awarded the contracts for the production of new models of cars. The next one is due late 2017 early 2018. It is unlikely that trade/tariff negotiations will be completed by then. The Sunderland plant could lose out to the Spanish or French plants. While 4,500 work directly for Nissan, it is estimated that 45,000 jobs in the region are indirectly dependent on it.

Interesting. I just used that as an example but it's quite relevant methinks.

Jaggo wrote: »

The same problems with the EEA also exist with the WTO. All members can veto Britain's membership of the WTO including the likes of Russia or anyone else with an ax to grind. Even worse could be the effect on Britain's negotiating position in Trade talks when any country can hold Britain hostage over WTO entry.

WTO rules, I suspect are just basic trade rules and nothing more. I do know that they don't rule out tariffs so this is no panacea.

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

Not collapse - but that it would put it in a situation whereby it could not survive without heavy assistance from the State and would endanger the French nuclear industry certainly is a very widespread one in France and seems to be the one of the one of the French president, who said this about the project:

"Il est très important de faire comprendre que nous avons besoin d'avoir une industrie nucléaire qui soit de haute performance, de haute sûreté en France, et que nous ne pouvons pas laisser, non plus à l'exportation, d'autres venir sur des terrains qui, jusqu'à présent, pouvaient être français"

All he’s doing there is stressing the importance of France’s nuclear industry – nothing to do with Hinckley Point as such.

Look, I’m obviously not arguing that it would not be bad for EDF (and, therefore, the French state) if the Hinkley Point project doesn’t work out. But, as I’ve said already, it would also be bad for the UK, given the trouble they’ve had securing funding.

But, at the end of the day, the rest of the EU don’t really give a toss about France’s nuclear industry. Every EU nation will have some vested interest in the UK, particularly the nearest neighbours. But most of those interests are likely to be unique to one or two states (French cheese, German cars, Irish beef, etc.), so they’re not going to be priorities for the EU as a whole. However, the UK still wants all that the various EU states have to offer – they’ve got far more to lose than any individual EU member state. So in terms of strength of negotiating positions, the EU is very much in the ascendancy, Hinkley Point or no Hinkley Point.

djpbarry

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How much damage would have to be done before people see that they were sold a pup by Farage, Johnson, Wolfson, Aaronovitch et al?

I think most people will never reach that point.

The Leave campaign was all about telling people what they wanted to hear. Britain is great, immigrants are bad, etc., etc. Even the laziest of examinations would show that pretty much every claim made was completely without basis in reality, but because these statements were tapping into people’s preconceptions and fervent beliefs, no explanation was necessary. Now, post-referendum, anything good will be dressed up as a positive consequence of Brexit and anything bad will be dismissed with “it would be far worse if we remained in the EU”.

As an aside, I was up in Cumbria a couple of weeks ago, sitting in a “friendly local” with the missus, and we overheard a bunch of guys not far from us discussing Brexit. To a man, they were of the belief that the UK had already left the EU and that’s why the stock markets were performing so well.

‘Nuff said.

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

But, at the end of the day, the rest of the EU don’t really give a toss about France’s nuclear industry. Every EU nation will have some vested interest in the UK, particularly the nearest neighbours. But most of those interests are likely to be unique to one or two states (French cheese, German cars, Irish beef, etc.), so they’re not going to be priorities for the EU as a whole. .

Yes that's exactly the high-levelpoint I was making in my original post about May playing EU leaders against each other and sending warning shots.

Clearly other EU leaders don't care about EDF and Hinkley Point, but they care about other things related to the UK. It is unlikely that each leader will accept to give-up on defending its own national concerns (it would hurt them in national politics), and May must be counting on weakening the UE's negotiation's position as the EU's team has to deal with with all these different national requests.

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes that's exactly the high-levelpoint I was making in my original post about May playing EU leaders against each other and sending warning shots.

I’m really not seeing much evidence of that, to be honest. And given the hesitancy within EDF to proceed, Hinkley Point is a bad example to illustrate your argument – China seems far more eager to press ahead than France does:

Liu Xiaoming wrote:

Britain takes pride in being a country that is open to foreign investors. Rightly so. It is exactly because of such openness that China has become the UK’s second-largest non-European trading partner. Britain is one of the key destinations for Chinese companies seeking to invest overseas. Over the past five years, such companies have invested more in the UK than in Germany, France and Italy combined.

An important reason why this has been possible is that both China and the UK have consistently respected and trusted each other. If Britain’s openness is a condition for bilateral co-operation, then mutual trust is the very foundation on which this is built.

Right now, the China-UK relationship is at a crucial historical juncture. Mutual trust should be treasured even more. I hope the UK will keep its door open to China and that the British government will continue to support Hinkley Point — and come to a decision as soon as possible so that the project can proceed smoothly.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b8bc62dc-5d74-11e6-bb77-a121aa8abd95.html#axzz4H7uI4sZX

In fact, it may well be in EDF’s interest to pause for now, given that they are working on a very similar project at Flamanville – if that’s up and running soon, the cost of Hinkley Point will fall significantly.

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m really not seeing much evidence of that, to be honest.

That is my impression following her visits to various European leaders a few weeks ago. The messages coming out of the press conferences were not very consistent and I heard on the radio (renowned daily piece about geopolitics on France Inter) that she had been teasing leaders about specific points raised by other ones in an attempt to divide and conquer.

Now I am not saying this strategy will work, but IMO she would be right to use that card as it is one of the few strong ones she has in her hand.

Won't elaborate more about Hinkley point - it is a side topic an we have both explained our different opinions and arguments.

Nody

Bob24 wrote: »

Now I am not saying this strategy will work, but IMO she would be right to use that card as it is one of the few strong ones she has in her hand.

But it is a very weak card; let's make up some examples:

• France wants nuclear power sales
• Germany wants to sell cars
• Ireland wants no borders
• Poland wants free immigration along with Slovakia and Czech Republic
• Italy wants wine name protection rights
• Portugal wants financial support to the union (i.e. funding for them)
• Spain wants fishing rights in the sea

Now we go to the negotiation table with the above; all it comes down to is we want free trade & movement of people and if UK says sure, we'll do free trade but no immigration, no fee, no rules and UK people get to move around EU freely then the whole negotiation will fail on day 1 because even the likes of France or Germany would ever accept that (and that's before veto powers come into play; there are quite a few eastern European countries who'd be very pissed of if not allowed to move freely and work in the UK who can say no to any such treaty).

And that's where the whole idea of divide and conquer will fall; unless they accept free movement for people from EU there's not going to be free trade. If there's not free trade then it's going to be going for what can be "taken" from UK to compensate it (for example Frankfurt and Paris been placing themselves to be the place of Financial services which they could accept as a trade off for their respective trade which would be a massive tax loss for UK). Same applies to things such as fishing rights; if Spain losses them you can be sure there will require significant compensation (in some form) to offset that and the list goes on. And since UK was a net contributor the likes of France and Germany would then need to pay even more to compensate the UK first loss and the additional compensation on top of it all making them that much less agreeable to it.

If they want to go for zero immigration their best bet will be to stand completely outside of EU; the losses in terms of funding (already frozen billions of euros worth of EU funded project that require the UK state to pay 50%), losses for research (access to funding, sites, technology etc.) would be a huge blow but for the man in the street that's all worth it (those losses will shown in the slower development etc. in 10 to 30 years instead and most who voted no because immigration is bad will believe it). Also take in mind when Greenland left (back in 84) a country with 50k people and a ton less common legislation took 3.5 years to negotiate their exit deal so don't expect this one to be quick. I expect we'll have both one and two new elections in both UK and to the EU parliament before the final deal is concluded and if it is done before 2020 I'll be very surprised.

K-9

While dissatisfaction with the EU was high, people are even more sick of politicians in general, in a way the EU was a symptom of that.

It might take years for the full effects to come out and there'll be loads of confirmation biases on both sides. I was always got the impression Irish people generally take more of an interest in politics and even basic economics, all right we aren't geniuses but we tend to be more aware of who our local TD's or ministers are.

British politics is very left vs. right whereas we are much more centrist so maybe more nuanced?

Younger generations here don't seem as interested but that could be "in my day" stuff!

ancapailldorcha

K-9 wrote: »

While dissatisfaction with the EU was high, people are even more sick of politicians in general, in a way the EU was a symptom of that.

It might take years for the full effects to come out and there'll be loads of confirmation biases on both sides. I was always got the impression Irish people generally take more of an interest in politics and even basic economics, all right we aren't geniuses but we tend to be more aware of who our local TD's or ministers are.

British politics is very left vs. right whereas we are much more centrist so maybe more nuanced?

Younger generations here don't seem as interested but that could be "in my day" stuff!

Interesting though you could say that the Irish might be more interested in local politics which might explain the difference. Another factor is Irelands STV system versus the UK's FPTP which means that votes for parties outside of the big 2 tend to go in the bin reducing any feeling of power or control.

Younger people seem to be more interested in national and international levels but you don't really get to vote or exert any real influence when the scale is so much bigger. They also seem more disaffected with voting specifically and are know for their poor turnout. A shame as this might have shifted the vote to a narrow Remain win.

Bob24

@Nody - yes, definitely agreed she will not come to the negotiation table on day one telling everyone else "all of you know what we can take away from you, if you don't give as what we want we will not cooperate" (alienating negotiations partners and positioning yourself as one v.s. all the others would not be a divide and conquer strategy).
I think she will rather try to talk to head of states privately about each of their requests and engage with them with a positive attitude, while at the same time waiting for national interests to cause tension between the EU27 members and possibly trying to quietly exacerbate those tensions. Not saying she will succeed, but probably a card worth playing.

As Sir Humphrey would say ...

Nody

Bob24 wrote: »

@Nody - yes, definitely agreed she will not come to the negotiation table on day one telling everyone else "all of you know what we can take away from you, if you don't give as what we want we will not cooperate" (alienating negotiations partners and positioning yourself as one v.s. all the others would not be a divide and conquer strategy).

But the problem is as it's a negotiation you also need to start at your most extreme point to be able to give up concessions; the problem with that is she needs to start at no free transit of people in but allowed out and that is pretty much a show stopper from day 1. If she does not start there she'll not get what the voter expects.

I think she will rather try to talk to head of states privately about each of their requests and engage with them with a positive attitude, while at the same time waiting for national interests to cause tension between the EU27 members and possibly trying to quietly exacerbate those tensions.

Except the problem is she needs at least 21 states to vote for the deal and the deal needs to be bad enough not to encourage other countries to follow (no one would cry if Hungary for example left but Spain, Belgium etc. would be significant); increasing tension between the states only magnifies the chance that some of them vote no out of spite to piss on Germany/France instead. In essence she'd build an opposition by pointing out the differences rather than trying to drum up good will for UK in general ahead of the negotiations and make the countries more nationalistic (i.e. no deal without OUR stuff protected) than before.

Bob24

Nody wrote: »

But the problem is as it's a negotiation you also need to start at your most extreme point to be able to give up concessions; the problem with that is she needs to start at no free transit of people in but allowed out and that is pretty much a show stopper from day 1. If she does not start there she'll not get what the voter expects.

Yes and she will probably set that high expectation. Just without threatening anyone (especially not publicly and as a group), and while trying to hold parallel one to one talks with different states in the background.

Nody wrote: »

Except the problem is she needs at least 21 states to vote for the deal and the deal needs to be bad enough not to encourage other countries to follow (no one would cry if Hungary for example left but Spain, Belgium etc. would be significant); increasing tension between the states only magnifies the chance that some of them vote no out of spite to piss on Germany/France instead. In essence she'd build an opposition by pointing out the differences rather than trying to drum up good will for UK in general ahead of the negotiations and make the countries more nationalistic (i.e. no deal without OUR stuff protected) than before.

OK, we disagree on the effect of letting multiple national interests play out. Britain has traditionally excelled in doing that to get what it wants.

Bob24

The Sunday Time is reporting today that ministers have been privately saying the government is planning to delay the invocation of article 50 until the end of 2017. I understand their reasons, but this might be difficult. There will be both pressure from the inside with Brexit voters asking why things are not moving faster and from the outside with EU institutions and leaders tired of being in limbo.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexit-will-be-delayed-until-end-of-2019-6kxb7sgrr

Lemming

Bob24 wrote: »

The Sunday Time is reporting today that ministers have been privately saying the government is planning to delay the invocation of article 50 until the end of 2017. I understand their reason, but this might be difficult. There will be both pressure from the inside with Brexit voters asking why things are not moving faster and from the outside with EU institutions and leaders tired of being in limbo.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexit-will-be-delayed-until-end-of-2019-6kxb7sgrr

Can't read all of that article due to it being paywalled.

The longer this drags out, the more and more damage Britain does to its credibility internationally, both politically & economically. And as I've maintained, the longer this drags out, the less & less likely invocation of Article 50 is to occur ... which also fits with the parliament.tv session comments that I've witnessed thus far from senior civil servants. They don't know what to do, they're not hearing "words of comfort" on any acceptable manner in which to proceed and every option they might take simply leads them to a weaker, more vulnerable position that is not to the UK's advantage.

Calina

I think the administration in the UK is in a no-win situation. Unless they can create an economic miracle out of nothing within 2 years, it doesn't matter which route to the future they take, a fair bunch of the population of the UK will be annoyed, to put it mildly. Additionally, the comfort blanket of EEA/EFTA is now not something they can take for granted, and there are similar issues with the WTO.

Even if they identify what it is they want to do, the complexity of implementing it is lost on a lot of people still yelling about how they won and took their country back.

The problem, as I see it, isn't even the invocation of Article 50 because that would almost be a formality if the UK knew what Brexit actually meant in practical terms. They don't and it doesn't even matter which one they choose; no one will have actually voted for it.

Ultimately, the thing is, if you as a country decide you want to leave the EU, before you actually start implementing that kind of decision, you need to have a picture of what that post-EU world will look like. I wonder how the referendum would have gone if the no vote was underpinned by a defined sequence of actions that could be followed with the ramifications of those actions spelled out. For any other country in the future thinking about this, it's the part that really needs to be nailed down - what no actually means in practical terms.

Some work is now being done on what is necessary but it's really only the tip of the iceberg and scratching the surface. If you even scrap the concerns about joint research projects and Erasmus exchange programs, the headache this causes for UK legislation has hardly been evaluated. In the real world, this is the sort of stuff that really needs to be done before the decision is put to a referendum. It's not that you can't leave the EU - the mechanism exists to do so - it's that you need to clearly evaluate the preparatory work that needs to be done to get as far as Article 50 on a local basis. The UK didn't do this.

Lemming

Calina wrote: »

The problem, as I see it, isn't even the invocation of Article 50 because that would almost be a formality if the UK knew what Brexit actually meant in practical terms. They don't and it doesn't even matter which one they choose; no one will have actually voted for it.

Even if the UK doesn't invoke article 50, or does so and then aborts the procedure out of a dawning realisation of the absurdly obvious, there will be a heavy economic price to pay, both in jobs lost and in jobs never made with investment opportunities lost to the ages as money goes elsewhere. That is on foot of the lasting internal political damage that will be visited upon the parties as even less people will deign to trust a word that comes ouf of a politician's mouth, the lasting international political damage already being wrought, and the social price that is already being exacted with the rise of bigotry & racial intolerance.

All in all, it will be a resoundingly phyrric victory if the UK does not leave (and I say that as the best possible outcome of this shamefully dishonest debacle).

Pro Hoc Vice

Lemming wrote: »

Even if the UK doesn't invoke article 50, or does so and then aborts the procedure out of a dawning realisation of the absurdly obvious, there will be a heavy economic price to pay, both in jobs lost and in jobs never made with investment opportunities lost to the ages as money goes elsewhere. That is on foot of the lasting internal political damage that will be visited upon the parties as even less people will deign to trust a word that comes ouf of a politician's mouth, the lasting international political damage already being wrought, and the social price that is already being exacted with the rise of bigotry & racial intolerance.

All in all, it will be a resoundingly phyrric victory if the UK does not leave (and I say that as the best possible outcome of this shamefully dishonest debacle).

The problem with withdrawing the Article 50 process is that I don't believe it would be possible unless it had support of all other members.

Lemming

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The problem with withdrawing the Article 50 process is that I don't believe it would be possible unless it had support of all other members.

Invocation of article 50 is the sole preserve of the nation in question, and from what I understand can be withdrawn equally. It makes sense for the EU to be able to just say "ok, business as usual then" without any additional effort required from anyone else other than the affected nation having to deal with the fallout of their own decisions.

Calina

Lemming wrote: »

Invocation of article 50 is the sole preserve of the nation in question, and from what I understand can be withdrawn equally. It makes sense for the EU to be able to just say "ok, business as usual then" without any additional effort required from anyone else other than the affected nation having to deal with the fallout of their own decisions.

Withdrawal of article 50 isn't provided for in the treaty aiui so absent agreement in the Council it's possible it would wind up requiring court clarification.

Pro Hoc Vice

Lemming wrote: »

Invocation of article 50 is the sole preserve of the nation in question, and from what I understand can be withdrawn equally. It makes sense for the EU to be able to just say "ok, business as usual then" without any additional effort required from anyone else other than the affected nation having to deal with the fallout of their own decisions.

The Article is silent on withdrawal of the notice.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

What it does say

"The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."

Unless you can point to law allowing withdrawal of notice I think the UK may very well be stuck once it invokes the Article.

Lemming

I stand corrected PHV. Unless there's an addendum somewhere or some such other covering protocol, it strikes me as very odd that the EU would draft such legislation and not have some means of dealing with termination of the departure mechanism. In that regard I think if the matter gets prickly it'll end up being quite the headache for all parties concerned. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Edit: reading point two of that link PHV, it would seem that any decision either way, once article 50 is invoked, comes down to a decision of the council & member states. One would like to think that common sense would prevail but if any member states are feeling particularly aggrieved and want to throw a spanner in the works, it'll get very messy.

Pro Hoc Vice

Lemming wrote: »

I stand corrected PHV. Unless there's an addendum somewhere or some such other covering protocol, it strikes me as very odd that the EU would draft such legislation and not have some means of dealing with termination of the departure mechanism. In that regard I think if the matter gets prickly it'll end up being quite the headache for all parties concerned. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Edit: reading point two of that link PHV, it would seem that any decision either way, once article 50 is invoked, comes down to a decision of the council & member states. One would like to think that common sense would prevail but if any member states are feeling particularly aggrieved and want to throw a spanner in the works, it'll get very messy.

Well if agreement can not be reached then after 2 years the UK is out. The Article was drafted as all or nothing to stop exactly what the UK would love, they now know once the start they have no more control of where it ends.