Brexit Referendum Superthread

demfad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

We still face many issues when it comes to trade talks with various parts of the world incl India. Opening markets with India can help European imports don't forget though the Chinese are backing the Silk Road initiative which will be a huge international market place with particular emphasis on Asia. EU will have to compete with an enormous market place in this Silk Road initiative. Britain could also expand into this market they already have access to China. Relations between the two countries are fairly cozy.

Negative:

China had been one of the more significant purchasers of UK bonds. When The Brexit vote was passed that was shelved or 'Chexit' as you will.
A common falsehood being spread is that somehow Brexit makes the UK a more attarctive place for investment. Nothing could be further from the truth.

catbear

The UKs brexit modus operandi is the assumption that the global economy will realign to Britain's benefit. Only a severe detachment from reality can explain this.

Leonard Hofstadter

Not exactly going well for them in Africa either:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-government-africa-free-trade-zone-post-brexit-empire-2-liam-fox-international-commonwealth-a7613526.html

And then we had the spectacle of what a former Indian MP had to say, so if he is typical of Indian opinion, they're not exactly going to be rushing out to do a deal with Britain either. I know a few Indians and it's been made abundantly clear to me that their Government not interested in any kind of free trade deal with the UK unless there is some give on free movement of people - something of course that is anathema to the British electorate, after all immigration was probably the main driver of the leave vote in the referendum.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/shashi-tharoor-britain-india-suffer-historical-amnesia-over-atrocities-of-their-former-empire-says-a7612086.html

swampgas

Interesting article Brexit is (maybe) the ruin of Irish whiskey on likely cross-border supply chain issues if a hard border is imposed in NI.

It does illustrate just how complex supply chains have become. (IMO largely enabled by IT systems that allow logistics to be managed in a way that would have been impossible decades ago).

No doubt supply chains would be reconfigured to reduce cross-border costs and delays, but there could be significant costs in the short term and who knows how many small businesses might go under as a result.

catbear

swampgas wrote: »

Interesting article Brexit is (maybe) the ruin of Irish whiskey on likely cross-border supply chain issues if a hard border is imposed in NI.

At the very least a bottling production line could be reassembled south of the border but far more pressing is the British meat industry. Half of the UKs vets are EU trained but 95% of them of the EU vets work in the less glamourous area of certifying british consumer meat. Obviously failure to uphold certification standards is going to be a real problem post brexit if not already.

It's another area where Irelands food quality reputation will get another boost from brexit.

demfad

The argument for Westminster having a meaningful vote after negotiation explored and argued convincingly here:

https://waitingfortax.com/2017/03/06/four-reasons-why-a-meaningful-final-vote-wont-hurt-our-bargaining-position/

Nody

demfad wrote: »

The argument for Westminster having a meaningful vote after negotiation explored and argued convincingly here:

https://waitingfortax.com/2017/03/06/four-reasons-why-a-meaningful-final-vote-wont-hurt-our-bargaining-position/

But the vote is pretty much useless; so let's say they vote down the deal May has managed to get (and I assume she'll argue for the best deal for UK from a Brexit POV) what do they expect to happen? A new deal to be agreed in 1 months time out of the blue when it was not there in the previous 18 months?

demfad

Nody wrote: »

But the vote is pretty much useless; so let's say they vote down the deal May has managed to get (and I assume she'll argue for the best deal for UK from a Brexit POV) what do they expect to happen? A new deal to be agreed in 1 months time out of the blue when it was not there in the previous 18 months?

No. They will remain and negotiate again, or just remain. A50 is revocable.

catbear

demfad wrote: »

No. They will remain and negotiate again, or just remain. A50 is revocable.

That's if they get unanimous consent to extend A50 past the two year limit.

demfad

catbear wrote: »

That's if they get unanimous consent to extend A50 past the two year limit.

There shouldnt be an issue with it according to Tusk. Also the case on revocability that was started in Dublin will be settled in the ECJ by then so UK will know for definite if they can revoke unilaterally or not.
Interestingly, the UK gov does not want to know the legal situation around A50 (if it is revocable or not).
Politically it is easier that way:

Good deal-Tories take credit
Bad deal/crash out- Blame EU

First Up

demfad wrote: »

There shouldnt be an issue with it according to Tusk. Also the case on revocability that was started in Dublin will be settled in the ECJ by then so UK will know for definite if they can revoke unilaterally or not.
Interestingly, the UK gov does not want to know the legal situation around A50 (if it is revocable or not).
Politically it is easier that way:

Good deal-Tories take credit
Bad deal/crash out- Blame EU

So what happens when they have finished blaming the EU?

catbear

demfad wrote: »

There shouldnt be an issue with it according to Tusk.

The final say is down to individual member states.

3. 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.

Anyone members could block an extension to A50. It's actually highly likely if the UK continue to use the EU as a scapegoat for all its domestic problems.

Once A50 is triggered, and it will be, the big moves of businesses protecting themselves will start and it's highly likely that the rabid leavetards will become more incensed.

demfad

catbear wrote: »

The final say is down to individual member states.

Anyone members could block an extension to A50. It's actually highly likely if the UK continue to use the EU as a scapegoat for all its domestic problems.

Once A50 is triggered, and it will be, the big moves of businesses protecting themselves will start and it's highly likely that the rabid leavetards will become more incensed.

The author of A50, Lord Kerr fully believes that it is revocable. We wont know until the ECJ case is completed.
I don't see any reason why a European Council member would vote against extension. (Perhaps the leader of Hungary might do Putin's bidding.)

What the Lords decision will mean is that the UK Govt will have to ask for an extension of to revoke it outright. They should be adopting a more concilatory tone to make this option easier. The tactic seems to be to leave after two years at all costs. Having the option to stay in, although better for teh UK, makes May's political plans more difficult.

Nody

demfad wrote: »

The author of A50, Lord Kerr fully believes that it is revocable. We wont know until the ECJ case is completed.
I don't see any reason why a European Council member would vote against extension. (Perhaps the leader of Hungary might do Putin's bidding.)

Because by extending it the market insecurity continue and for multiple countries who've gained new factories/promises from major manufacturers don't want to lose them or simply out of spite/tiredness because of how UK has treated their members/the negotiations.

For example the 60 billion bill for existing; if UK says no there then already you got the likes of France and Spain who'd net a lot from it (or Germany or Sweden who'd pay more) asking wtf should we give them more time.

catbear

The wording is unambiguous. It was designed to give member states the power to stop an exiting member dragging out the separation talks indefinitely.

To amend the wording would require a referendum in Ireland.

demfad

catbear wrote: »

The wording is unambiguous. It was designed to give member states the power to stop an exiting member dragging out the separation talks indefinitely.

To amend the wording would require a referendum in Ireland.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628

But Lord Kerr, who devised the clause, said the country "might want to think again" when Brexit terms become clearer.
He explained: "It is not irrevocable.
"You can change your mind while the process is going on.
"During that period, if a country were to decide actually we don't want to leave after all, everybody would be very cross about it being a waste of time.
"They might try to extract a political price but legally they couldn't insist that you leave."

We need to see what the 28 Justices in the ECJ come up with.

catbear

The wording mightn't cover a suspension but it doesn't reverse departure and member states like Ireland won't tolerate indefinitely market distortions from a volatile sterling.

The only way I can see the UK reversing A50 without requiring treaty change referendums in Ireland is to reapply for full membership which means giving up its opt outs.

Now I can't see decades of UK euroskepticism disappearing in the next two years so at this point I expect after March 2019 the UK will leave without a deal but will grandfather all their EU commitments just to avoid economic disruption.

After that who the hell knows!

demfad

catbear wrote: »

The wording mightn't cover a suspension but it doesn't reverse departure and member states like Ireland won't tolerate indefinitely market distortions from a volatile sterling.

The only way I can see the UK reversing A50 without requiring treaty change referendums in Ireland is to reapply for full membership which means giving up its opt outs.

Now I can't see decades of UK euroskepticism disappearing in the next two years so at this point I expect after March 2019 the UK will leave without a deal but will grandfather all their EU commitments just to avoid economic disruption.

After that who the hell knows!

No treaty change would be necessary: The ECJ will determine if A50 is revocable or not, that's all. Lord Kerr and many others believe the court will rule that it is reversable.

The world is changing. It depends on the investigation into Trump. It may force an investigation into Russian interference, election manipulation and a wholescale re-alignment of western media structure. That will change things.

MojoRisinnnn

So is it looking like EU nationals can still apply for jobs and legally work in the UK even after article 50 is triggered? Or is it only after they have fully left the EU then it will become more difficult?

seamus

demfad wrote: »

We need to see what the 28 Justices in the ECJ come up with.

Will definitely be interesting alright. The wording seems to have no wiggle room - the treaties cease to apply when an agreement is made, or two years after notification, whichever comes first.
The article contains no provisions for withdrawing notification which is what Mr Kerr says is the way to stop it.

That said, there is possibly legal precedence or a wider guideline for withdrawing notifications, which would apply here and it's not just a case of reading the article in isolation.

One thing which I've found interesting to read is the reasoning behind the challenge. The guy who has brought the challenge isn't per se opposed to Brexit - he's opposed to a Brexit which cannot be reversed if it's bad for the UK, on the basis that voters in a democracy are entitled to change their minds. In other words, he wants notification to be revocable if it turns out that the UK will be in a worse economic position after leaving the EU.

Which sounds natural, but the UK nor the EU do not run on direct democracy principles, so IMO the idea that there must be room for a member state to flip-flop is far more dangerous to the EU than forcing one to stick to the decision that it has made.
And ultimately article 50 does contain a clause that explicitly sets out the process for "changing your mind", which is to restart the joining process.

MojoRisinnnn wrote: »

So is it looking like EU nationals can still apply for jobs and legally work in the UK even after article 50 is triggered? Or is it only after they have fully left the EU then it will become more difficult?

Triggering article 50 effectively changes nothing. The UK remains a member of the EU at that time, and retains all of the rights and obligations that come with it.

What happens after they have formally left the EU depends on what the talks reveal. The latest indication is that EU citizens who are resident in the UK before article 50 is triggered will retain an indefinite, unrestricted right to live and work in the UK. Those who move to the UK after article 50 is triggered will have to apply for a visa, but only when the UK has left the EU.

catbear

seamus wrote: »

The article contains no provisions for withdrawing notification which is what Mr Kerr says is the way to stop it.

I disagree. A50 is a very clear process with one purpose only. There are no sidings in the wording.

An agreement to forget could certainly be made between members but then brexiters could launch a legal challenge to uphold the wording.

The A50 gun is cocked and once fired either the UK exits the EU or it ricochets into full union as a new member minus its old opt-outs.

View

catbear wrote: »

The wording is unambiguous. It was designed to give member states the power to stop an exiting member dragging out the separation talks indefinitely.

To amend the wording would require a referendum in Ireland.

Actually it wouldn't need a referendum since changing the wording of article 50 should have no impact on sovereignty in either a positive or negative sense.

oscarBravo

View wrote: »

Actually it wouldn't need a referendum since changing the wording of article 50 should have no impact on sovereignty in either a positive or negative sense.

It wouldn't need one - but the Irish electorate have convinced themselves that they're entitled to referendums on EU treaties, and would react badly to talk of a treaty change without having a say (aka a chance to punish the government for the issue du jour).

murphaph

catbear wrote: »

Once A50 is triggered, and it will be, the big moves of businesses protecting themselves will start and it's highly likely that the rabid leavetards will become more incensed.

The best outcome for Ireland would be for them to invoke A50 (they will anyway) then for many UK companies to relocate to Ireland and then for the UK to panic as they see the exodus actually take place and then for the Lib Dems to be elected to a landslide general election victory to revoke A50, leaving us with plenty of new employers and a UK still inside the EU. One can dream....

ancapailldorcha

murphaph wrote: »

The best outcome for Ireland would be for them to invoke A50 (they will anyway) then for many UK companies to relocate to Ireland and then for the UK to panic as they see the exodus actually take place and then for the Lib Dems to be elected to a landslide general election victory to revoke A50, leaving us with plenty of new employers and a UK still inside the EU. One can dream....

The Lib Dems haven't a hope of winning an outright majority. Scotland is currently in a love affair with the SNP. There are various Labour heartlands up north who'll vote Labour no matter what. Ditto for the Tories in the South. I fully expect the Lib Dems to improve their hand in 2020. However, the country is too divided for them to win outright. Their best chance would be to enter into a coalition with Labour and possible the SNP on an anti-Brexit platform.

seamus

catbear wrote: »

I disagree. A50 is a very clear process with one purpose only. There are no sidings in the wording.

That's exactly what I was saying

However, international law doesn't work in exactly the same way as normal law. I'm not going to pretend to even be an amateur at it, but it would seem to me plausible that there might be precedents or processes that can be used to do it.

For example, all commentators seem to be stating it as a fact that the UK can rollback on article 50 if all of the EU member states agree to let it.

There's nothing in article 50 which says it's possible. But given that treaties are effectively just contracts between nations, it seems logical that they can be amended/ignored on the fly provided that all parties to the contract agree.

The only discussion point seems to be whether the UK can rollback on art. 50 unilaterally.

catbear

View wrote: »

catbear wrote: »

The wording is unambiguous. It was designed to give member states the power to stop an exiting member dragging out the separation talks indefinitely.

To amend the wording would require a referendum in Ireland.

Actually it wouldn't need a referendum since changing the wording of article 50 should have no impact on sovereignty in either a positive or negative sense.

If A50 isn't upheld then every other provision of the Irish constitution is open to attack.

Fratton Fred

catbear wrote: »

If A50 isn't upheld then every other provision of the Irish constitution is open to attack.

does every change in eu legislation need a referendum in Ireland?

First Up

Fratton Fred wrote:

does every change in eu legislation need a referendum in Ireland?

Only changes to treaties.

catbear

First Up wrote: »

Only changes to treaties.

Thank you.

And that's why anyone could launch an Irish constitutional challenge on an irish government granting consent on any course that variated away from the unambiguous course set out in A50.

Once A50 has started it is literally a fuse being lit.