Brexit discussion thread IV

trellheim

Silent Running wrote: »

Well, that's where reality comes into play. They had all the toys and threw them out of the playpen. then stormed out, or will have. If it's a case that the reality is bleak outside the EU, and their only way back in is to swallow some bitter pills, they might suddenly acquire a taste for them.

I'm not advocating punishment. Just for the UK to realise that actions have consequences. They gambled on the EU bowing to them and they lost. Now the bet has to be paid. The EU will undoubtedly feel some pain, but it will get over it and move on. The upside is shedding a roadblock to progress.

Again - I see the argument - but forcing Schengen would crystallize the country against

CelticRambler

My first thought when I saw that Sky poll data this morning was that nothing has changed: there's still "only" 48% who support remain - exactly the same as the % who voted in the referendum. All that we're seeing are the obviously disparate answers to the question "What do you want from Brexit?"/"What does Brexit mean to you?" - and the stupidity of acting on a slender majority after presenting voters with a binary choice in a referendum about something with such long-lasting consequences.

Silent Running

trellheim wrote: »

Again - I see the argument - but forcing Schengen would crystallize the country against

Yep, those particular pills would be bitter indeed. I suppose it would all swivel on how bad a situation the UK finds itself in, in 3 or 5 years, or whatever. Maybe they're right and the economy will boom after leaving the EU, and they will never look back. On the other hand...

ambro25

trellheim wrote: »

On what basis, there is afaik no clause anywhere that says 'Ah sure, we decided to change our minds, lets all get back around the table"

There is nothing in Art 50 that says its irrevocable http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

The fact that there is nothing in the provision that makes it revocable (or conditional in any way), whether in the Article or anywhere else in the TEU, is what makes it irrevocable. That’s how civil law ‘works’.

That’s also why I’ve always said, since before May triggered it, that May triggering the provision was the single most damaging act she could perform: from that point onwards, the U.K. never had any leverage left; all the EU27 had to do was play the 2-year clock for the U.K. to exit without a deal, on the worst possible terms.

That precision made, where there is a political will, there is a judicial way, and clause L of the draft EU motion linked earlier makes that clear.

So I agree with you that the U.K. would indeed get a hearing about its request to withdraw its Art.50 instrument (and I also agree that, short of perhaps one or two ‘sticky’ topics like ES/Gib’, the EU wouldn’t press hard on Schengen or the €: it’s not worth the aggro, and there’s a Himalaya of goodwill to gain with everyone everywhere, at being magnanimous).

But by the same token, if Article 50 isn’t withdrawn before March 2019 (and, I’d argue, its effects formally cancelled by that same timescale), then Article 49 would have to apply (standard EU application by 3rd country). That context would favour a somewhat more hardball approach to the exercise from the EU27, I think.

Taytoland

It's one thing saying the UK should withdraw article 50 while forgetting about the Withdrawal bill enshrined in British law and also forgetting the biggest key aspect to such a decision which is the political will to do it. Labour have a hell of a lot of seats in areas which voted leave. 

Explaining the withdrawal to them in a general election is a recipe for disaster and equally for the Tories. Both can not afford to not see Brexit happen in some way, even if it is Brino as some wish. To not happen whatsoever is politically impossible unless a general election is called and one of the two parties runs on an anti Brexit ticket, declaring the urge to revoke Article 50 and then if they get into government you could say they have a basis for revoking it. 

But all that would do is give the other party a big advantage in the leave areas which is millions of votes, so it's very unlikely we are going to see article 50 revoked. Extending Article 50 would be a waste of time because the same issues will just keep coming back, the boil would need lanced sooner or later.

ambro25

Taytoland wrote: »

It's one thing saying the UK should withdraw article 50 while forgetting about the Withdrawal bill enshrined in British law and also forgetting the biggest key aspect to such a decision which is the political will to do it. Labour have a hell of a lot of seats in areas which voted leave. 

Explaining the withdrawal to them in a general election is a recipe for disaster and equally for the Tories. Both can not afford to not see Brexit happen in some way, even if it is Brino as some wish. To not happen whatsoever is politically impossible unless a general election is called and one of the two parties runs on an anti Brexit ticket, declaring the urge to revoke Article 50 and then if they get into government you could say they have a basis for revoking it. 

But all that would do is give the other party a big advantage in the leave areas which is millions of votes, so it's very unlikely we are going to see article 50 revoked. Extending Article 50 would be a waste of time because the same issues will just keep coming back, the boil would need lanced sooner or later.

That was never, and still is never, going to happen, in a month of Sunday’s.

It requires unanimous consent from the EU27, and the metric tons of flesh from the U.K. that each of the EU27 would require for a ‘yay’, are as politically unsellable at home in the UK, as an outright cancellation of ‘Brexit’.

BonnieSituation

Berserker wrote: »

If we have a hard Brexit, what do you think will happen to the CTA? What would the reaction to that be like for Irish citizens, if it was scrapped? Lad I work with goes to every Liverpool home game. Faced dropped when I told him that he would have to go through immigration etc if that came to pass.

And he'll still find an excuse not to go watch the League of Ireland.

---

I'm actually at a loss to where we are now wrt the British stance in negotiations. It's definitely been the most confusing week. And given how the last 2 years have been that's saying something.

Strazdas

Sam Russell wrote: »

Revokeing of the Art 50 woud require the unanimous agreement of all EU27 countries on the request of the UK. It is not certain the the EU27 would agree with or without some conditions. I could see Spain could require a deal on Gibraltar. There may be other prices demanded, but the EU would welcome a withdrawal of Art 50, if only to certify its non-punitive approach to the UK.

What position the UK would be in politically after the fact might be a little difficult to say. I cannot see them being other than like an unpopular relative at a wedding.

The EU would be right to very wary about revoking A50. They could do it and then the UK starts kicking off again very soon and making more threats and demands. It's not something they would just rush into.

Sam Russell

ambro25 wrote: »

That was never, and still is never, going to happen, in a month of Sunday’s.

It requires unanimous consent from the EU27, and the metric tons of flesh from the U.K. that each of the EU27 would require for a ‘yay’, are as politically unsellable at home in the UK, as an outright cancellation of ‘Brexit’.

I think an extension of a month might be possible if a withdrawal agreement as all but in place, but any longer effects the EU elections, and that involves the UK MEPs, and no-one wants Farage there one day longer than possible.

Leroy42

Strazdas wrote: »

The EU would be right to very wary about revoking A50. They could do it and then the UK starts kicking off again very soon and making more threats and demands. It's not something they would just rush into.

And so what? The UK would know they are on a road to nowhere with that.

The EU can simply stand up and say, "right then off you go, lets see how long your government lasts this time".

I still very much doubt there will be any 2nd Ref or withdraw of A50. The political will is not there. And I can't see that changing in the short term

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

And so what? The UK would know they are on a road to nowhere with that.

The EU can simply stand up and say, "right then off you go, lets see how long your government lasts this time".

I still very much doubt there will be any 2nd Ref or withdraw of A50. The political will is not there. And I can't see that changing in the short term

You couldn't put it past them though. And the point is it would make the EU look ridiculous for having revoked A50.

I do agree there will be no second referendum and a withdrawal of A50 seems unlikely.

First Up

Leroy42 wrote: »

Strazdas wrote: »

The EU would be right to very wary about revoking A50. They could do it and then the UK starts kicking off again very soon and making more threats and demands. It's not something they would just rush into.

And so what? The UK would know they are on a road to nowhere with that.

The EU can simply stand up and say, "right then off you go, lets see how long your government lasts this time".

I still very much doubt there will be any 2nd Ref or withdraw of A50. The political will is not there. And I can't see that changing in the short term

And from what I hear from contacts in Brussels and elsewhere (including Germany) nobody is waiting - or even seriously hoping - for the UK to think again. The EU has moved on and is focussed on adjusting to an EU without the UK. Just as importantly, so is the European (and international) business community.

Nobody takes much notice of the bravado and bombast from the Brexiteers. Thats just seen as internal UK politics.

When EU governments have a problem selling something to their electorates, the Commission and other member states are sensitive to local difficulties. That does not apply to Brexit. There is absolutely no interest in helping the Tories stay together or to help May survive. As far as most are concerned, Brexit has happened; we are just mopping up the mess.

The Irish border is a headache but the eventual solution will compromise neither the integrity of the Single Market or Ireland's membership of it. You can be sure about that.

MBSnr

Brexit and pallets... who'd have thought? We ran into problems shipping a custom made pallet to the US, where the legs were not certified/stamped as heat treated. Could be an issue for every shipment out of the UK, along with checking the goods on the pallets.

https://twitter.com/andyblatch64/status/1023858964130344961

https://medium.com/@andyblatch64/in-less-than-2-years-the-uk-will-be-leaving-the-eu-becoming-a-third-country-bb26bc7c226e

Econ__

Rain Ascending wrote: »

Unilaterally eliminate or significantly reduce import tariffs below the WTO default rates. .

Farming businesses and UK food manufacturers would go bust overnight if you allow floods of cheap food imports into the country.


There's pretty much no way of handling a no deal Brexit without blowing up the economy.

Econ__

Sam Russell wrote: »

Revokeing of the Art 50 woud require the unanimous agreement of all EU27 countries on the request of the UK. It is not certain the the EU27 would agree with or without some conditions. I could see Spain could require a deal on Gibraltar. There may be other prices demanded, but the EU would welcome a withdrawal of Art 50, if only to certify its non-punitive approach to the UK.

What position the UK would be in politically after the fact might be a little difficult to say. I cannot see them being other than like an unpopular relative at a wedding.

This is incorrect. The UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50. Jean-Claude Piris was one of the top legal people in the EU. Also, an MEP confirmed that Tusk made it abundantly clear in a meeting she attended that it is a unilateral decision.

https://twitter.com/piris_jc/status/962802993665101824

ambro25

Econ__ wrote: »

This is incorrect. The UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50. Jean-Claude Piris was one of the top legal people in the EU. Also, an MEP confirmed that Tusk made it abundantly clear in a meeting she attended that it is a unilateral decision.

https://twitter.com/piris_jc/status/962802993665101824

Piris’ take on Article 50 is, if not outright flawed, then at the very least subject to full and due consideration -and decision- by the ECJ, which is the sole jurisdiction habilitated to statute on the interpretation of EU texts: it is only the decision to leave recited in the Article, which is subject to national constitutional due process. Not any other decision (e.g. to rescind, or about the negotiation and the agreement also recited in the Article).

His is just an opinion, nothing more. ‘Leaving the door open’, in context, means that a fudge will certainly be found, if the UK does all that needs to be done within the requisite timeframe: that does not detract from the fundamental point, that it will be a (legal) fudge indeed.

Econ__

ambro25 wrote: »

Piris’ take on Article 50 is, if not outright flawed, then at the very least subject to full and due consideration -and decision- by the ECJ, which is the sole jurisdiction habilitated to statute on the interpretation of EU texts: it is only the decision to leave recited in the Article, which is subject to national constitutional due process. Not any decision to rescind.

His is just an opinion, nothing more.

He did not present it as an opinion.

How do you know that it hasn't been subject to full and due consideration?

ambro25

Econ__ wrote: »

He did not present it as an opinion.

How do you know that it hasn't been subject to full and due consideration?

He should have, for the sake of debating honesty: until the issue is duly considered and resolved at Court, it can’t ever be anything else than an opinion. Make of that absence of disclaimer what you will.

How do I know? I don’t (because of the above: there is no jurisprudence from the ECJ yet; not even a referral filed to get it).

But I am guided by the UK’s Supreme Court consideration of the issue (which has deemed Art.50 not to be revocable: note that this is just informative; not authoritative, since the U.K. Supreme Court doesn’t have jurisdiction over the TEU) and also by the absence of a relevant note or publication about the revocability of Art.50, amongst the hundreds of EU publications all to do with Brexit put out by the EU since 2016 (when the EU has been nothing if not wholly transparent and upfront the whole time).

Besides practicing EU (IP) Law (as in, EU Directives themselves, harmonised legislations and legacy legislations) for the last 18 years myself, before EU and national bodies, including the ECJ

The EU isn’t about to consider the extent of the fudging required, until it becomes a viable proposition from the U.K. In that context, there’s still nothing even on the horizon, and the timescale for it is now getting into ‘beyond problematic’ territory.

seamus

ambro25 wrote: »

He should have, for the sake of debating honesty: until the issue is duly considered and resolved at Court, it can’t ever be anything else than an opinion. Make of that absence of disclaimer what you will.

This. For the time being, it's schrodinger's article; it both can and can't be unilaterally revoked.
Until a European court makes a ruling on whether it can or can't be done, we don't know if it's possible.

Nobody has asked any court to rule on it.

At best, it could be used by the UK to buy themselves more time. On 29th March next, they unilaterally withdraw their notification, and then it goes to the European Court to decide if this is possible.

This would leave both the UK and the EU in a bit of a pickle about what to do about trade. Most likely the UK having signalled their intention to remain, would be still bound by EU law, so the EU would be "happy" to continue as if the UK is still an EU member, until the ruling is made.
Politically and economically it would be the equivalent of doubling-down for the UK. If the court rules in their favour, the internal damage is limited and contained, though they will have lost any "special" status in Brussels and will be told to toe the line or GTFO.
If the court rules against them, the UK will "crash" out of the EU literally overnight, which would be several levels worse again than an orderly "no deal" exit on a known date.

In both scenarios, the political damage is unpredictable, but it would be severe.

jooksavage

Listened to the Lawfare podcast on Brexit. The Americans' perspective on it doesn't differ that much from skepticism over this side of the pond. It's funny how the Brexiters were pushing the line that they'd be able to work out advantageous trade agreements with the US but the Americans are all agreeing "we're definitely going to exploit the UK... we'd be mad not to"

ArthurDayne

I remember thinking a while back that the Tories now resembled Macbeth knowing there was no way back: "I am in Blood, Stepped in so far that should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o'er".

Now, if the British political scene was following simple rationalism, some plucky individual might pop his or her head over the trench and say “f**k all this . . . it’s not working, let’s end this sorry affair and let the Brexiteers go back to the drawing board and come back with a workable vision for Brexit” (of course, it is a frustrating fact that there are undoubtedly politicians out there who are silently thinking this but have opted to remain silent out of a mixture of cowardice and career-oriented self-preservation).  In a rational political environment, I dare say most politicians would agree with said plucky individual – why plunge the country into uncertainty at the whim of people who have no plan?

In such a case, the Macbethian UK could simply turn around and wade back to the safe shores of certainty until such times as someone can come up with a better idea.

Unfortunately, rationalism has been abandoned by the current British political environment in favour of huge echoingly empty tankers of rhetoric and soundbites.  Not only did the Tories foist this disaster upon themselves via the most pea-brained referendum in British history, they waded further into sh*t creek with all their bluster of ‘Brexit means Brexit’ and ‘red lines’.  They have talked talked talked their way into a very difficult corner, burned all the bridges to potential salvation (e.g. the Brexiteer-appeasing stupidity of insisting on leaving the single market) and now, in their final act of vandalising both Britain and Europe, appear happier to steer their own economy and Europe’s future into uncertainty rather than be courageous and say : “look, we really did f**k this up”.  

But, f**ked it up they have, and I fear any move to go back on Brexit will (a) be viewed as an unacceptable humiliation of the UK’s standing in the world and (b) only serve to embolden the Brexiteers with the ‘injustice’ of the referendum result not being respected. If the Tories have proven one thing over the past two years, they will not risk the censure of their peers even for the good of the people.

murphaph

Infini wrote: »

Seem's like the public are starting to cop on to the fact that they've been sold a pup. If thing's keep going this way we might see a cancellation of this farce before they do massive damage to themselves.

If polls consistently show 60+/40- then it will be hard for parliament to ignore but this is just one poll.

I imagine a lot of parents especially might reconsider if sovereignty is worth more than adequate food and medicine for your children.

As stories of border chaos solidify, they just might save themselves from oblivion, if they can swallow their collective pride.

Strazdas

Econ__ wrote: »

This is incorrect. The UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50. Jean-Claude Piris was one of the top legal people in the EU. Also, an MEP confirmed that Tusk made it abundantly clear in a meeting she attended that it is a unilateral decision.

https://twitter.com/piris_jc/status/962802993665101824

It's not as simple as that. If any country could trigger A50 and then unilaterally withdraw it and return to being a full member as if nothing had happened, it would leave the process wide open to abuse by a member state.

Econ__

Strazdas wrote: »

It's not as simple as that. If any country could trigger A50 and then unilaterally withdraw it and return to being a full member as if nothing had happened, it would leave the process wide open to abuse by a member state.

My understanding of Article 50 is that it was drafted in an inefficient manner - there are many clear flaws in it. Not explicitly stating whether or not it can be unilaterally withdrawn is one.

Leroy42

My understanding was that Art 50 was inserted, but it was never expected to be used.

If the UK do want to revoke it, I am sure the EU can find a way. And they will amend A50 to ensure no one can mess them about like this in the future.

Water John

If memory is correct, the irony is that is was a UK official who drafted it, later ambassador to Canada. Art 50 has to be taken as it is and looks probable UK could unilaterally walk back. It would be up to the EU, following that, to solidify Art 50 so no country does a repeat.

I don't see any ambiguity in Article 50.. It clearly states that the withdrawal shall be concluded and instead of talk of cancelling it, they mention rejoining.

I don't speak legalese but it isn't a particularly dense few paragraphs.

Econ__

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see any ambiguity in Article 50.. It clearly states that the withdrawal shall be concluded and instead of talk of cancelling it, they mention rejoining.

I don't speak legalese but it isn't a particularly dense few paragraphs.

"..taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union"

That line is pretty ambiguous. There's no indication of what the scope should be - it could mean anything between 'I want to be like Canada', to a detailed and comprehensive framework for the future relationship.

Bit cynical

I think rather than revoking article 50 in the event of no deal, the UK is more likely, rather, to fail to invoke article 128 of the EEA agreement and thereby stay in the single market. As we know, if the UK wants to leave the single market, it must give 12 months notice notice to other EEA28 before they can leave. While the UK is in the EU they cannot issue this notice.


Failing to invoke A128 would still be a climbdown but less so than revoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

Imreoir2

Econ__ wrote: »

My understanding of Article 50 is that it was drafted in an inefficient manner - there are many clear flaws in it. Not explicitly stating whether or not it can be unilaterally withdrawn is one.

I read a paper on this question a while ago. It seems that it is almost unknown to include a revocation provision to an exit clause. It is generally assumed that a country wont invoke an exit clause unless it means to go through with exiting.

There is a good reason not to allow a country revoke Artical 50 unilateraly, it would be a moral hazzard as it would give governments the ability to blackmail the EU with no need to actually leave.

The general consensus as I understand it is that Art 50 can only be revoked with the consent of the 27, though that would ultimatly have to be ruled on by the ECJ.