Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[Liquid]

Goodness knows what the answer is.

To have not left in the first place. But can you put toothpaste back in the tube?

The notice to leave could be withdrawn but it would of course be extremely embarrassing; no politician wants to look weak in public, do they? And if the United Kingdom does come off the naughty step with its tail between its legs it's unlikely to gain any new concessions in future. But if it means retaining what it has now, I wouldn't complain too much.

 

[Dennisch]

You guys are going out in March, and probably start to negotiate to come back in 2020.

Unless, of course, financially your world is going to rock.

 

[baldgye]

The notice to leave could be withdrawn but it would of course be extremely embarrassing; no politician wants to look weak in public, do they?

Which is basically the problem.
The electorate has been fed a simplistic lie of how the world works (accepted it) and so want a simplistic solution. Unfortunately the complex reality is hard to pitch against the simplistic lies to the ignorant masses. Which has paralysed most politicians in the lower house.

 

[Touring Mars]

Apparently the ECJ is to rule on the matter of whether Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally next Tuesday...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ears-uk-exit-reversal-case-idUSKCN1NV1OW?il=0

If the ECJ rules that Article 50 cannot be revoked unilaterally, then a second referendum becomes all but pointless and potentially very dangerous - a vote could still be held, but it could end up giving the EU near total control over the UK's future... imagine a scenario where the British people vote overwhelmingly to revoke Article 50, but that actually executing that command can only be done with the approval of the EU27 member states. That would give the EU carte blanche to renegotiate the UK's current terms of membership - and there's no way on Earth this process would be complete before March 29th 2019.

A second referendum would only make sense if the ECJ rules that Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally, and then the question would likely have to be a simple one along the lines of 'should the UK revoke Article 50 and Remain in the EU under its current terms of membership'? I would be quite happy with that outcome, but the problem is that it would still require the government to allow a vote on it to occur.

 

[baldgye]

A second referendum would only really work if it were a straightforward 'yes' or 'no' decision as to whether we accept the deal agreed between the UK and the EU or not, with the consequence of a No vote meaning that we leave with no deal in March.

A second referendum would only make sense if the ECJ rules that Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally

I'm confused, would 'No' mean 'no-deal', or we don't leave the EU and this whole cluster-**** is reversed?

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm confused, would 'No' mean 'no-deal', or we don't leave the EU and this whole cluster-**** is reversed?

It would (obviously) depend on what the question was.

And the question may well depend on what the ECJ ruling is.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Apparently the ECJ is to rule on the matter of whether Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally next Tuesday...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ears-uk-exit-reversal-case-idUSKCN1NV1OW?il=0

If the ECJ rules that Article 50 cannot be revoked unilaterally, then a second referendum becomes all but pointless and potentially very dangerous - a vote could still be held, but it could end up giving the EU near total control over the UK's future... imagine a scenario where the British people vote overwhelmingly to revoke Article 50, but that actually executing that command can only be done with the approval of the EU27 member states. That would give the EU carte blanche to renegotiate the UK's current terms of membership - and there's no way on Earth this process would be complete before March 29th 2019.

A second referendum would only make sense if the ECJ rules that Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally, and then the question would likely have to be a simple one along the lines of 'should the UK revoke Article 50 and Remain in the EU under its current terms of membership'? I would be quite happy with that outcome, but the problem is that it would still require the government to allow a vote on it to occur.

If it requires complete agreement of the 27 then that will be 27 pounds of flesh required for agreement. It isn't acceptable and never could happen.

Their decision is literally the only way we could revoke it. After a General Election. With an overall majority for the Liberal Democrats.

 

[Touring Mars]

If it requires complete agreement of the 27 then that will be 27 pounds of flesh required for agreement.

That, I presume, will be part of what the ECJ rules on next week i.e. whether revoking Article 50 requires a qualified majority or unanimity of all EU member states.

If the ECJ rules that Article 50 cannot be revoked unilaterally (which I would expect) but that the remaining EU member states only need approve of the move by a qualified majority, then it could be a far less risky proposition for the UK, since no one member state could veto it. If, however, it would require unanimous approval, then it would be a very different story.

 

[baldgye]

Theresa May's Brexit deal 'would cost Britain £100bn a year by 2030'

Theresa May's Brexit deal will cost £1,090 for every person in the UK

Thank The Queen we have this great deal, instead of being RUINED by the possibility of remaining or being DeStRoyeD by the evil EU!!

 

[Hun200kmh]

Another outsider perspective. My daughter's total inability to understand Brexit.

So, today I was watching Sky News and the report on the "Commons" debate highlights. My daughter sits next to me and asks "what's happening".

I say "The UK's Prime Minister reached a Brexit deal with the EU and is presenting it to the UK's Parliament".

Next highlight is Corbyn speaking.

"That's the opposition leader?"
"Yes"
"... so, this one is against Brexit?"
"No, just against the deal on how to achieve it"

After some silence …

"Why do they all want to leave the EU?"

And then i say "It's difficult to explain, they blame the EU for many things" …

but … and after some and

I had an 💡 on how to really explain it.

So I told her to watch a few Yes, Minister videos. And told her "... that's 30+ plus years old humour, but as always with good humour, it is based on something serious and deeply rooted in their collective psyche, so they can recognize themselves in caricature".

After watching these 3, I think she got it. You got to love Yes Minister, one of the most clever humorous shows I can think of.

 

[Touring Mars]

Brilliant job explaining @Hun200kmh 👍

The only thing left to explain to your daughter now is the difference between funny (Yes Minister) and laughable (Brexit)...

 

[baldgye]

Yes Minister, Yes Prime Minister and The Thick of It are terrifyingly timeless

 

[TenEightyOne]

You got to love Yes Minister, one of the most clever humorous shows I can think of.

The Iron Lady supposedly insisted on having it delivered to 10 Downing Street on video tape. She even wrote a (terrible) scene for it herself, fortunately that never made it past the first few gins.

 

[Touring Mars]

More on the ECJ ruling over revoking Article 50...

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...to-rule-on-whether-article-50-can-be-reversed

the EU council’s legal service has told member states the UK has no right to revoke article 50 unilaterally. The confidential legal advice, which is unpublished, states that all 27 remaining states must agree unanimously to allow a country to withdraw a decision to leave the union.

 

[baldgye]

More on the ECJ ruling over revoking Article 50...

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...to-rule-on-whether-article-50-can-be-reversed

Bearing in mind that the EU has said that we can reverse Brexit...

Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker say door to EU remains open if Britain changes its mind on Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...uk-can-reverse-brexit-decision-if-it-wants-to

The evil EU dictator Tusk went on to say;

"...if a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy...
...We, here on the continent, haven’t had a change of heart. Our hearts are still open to you.”

There is this growing narrative that we need this unilateral option in order to reverse Brexit. It isn't and hasn't ever been true.

 

[Touring Mars]

Bearing in mind that the EU has said that we can reverse Brexit...

Yes, but notice that they don't say how or under what conditions.

There is this growing narrative that we need this unilateral option in order to reverse Brexit.

No... it is/was possible that Brexit could be halted without the 'unilateral option', but clearly there is a major difference between being able to unilaterally halt the process and requiring agreement (either partial or unanimous) from the other member states.

The most likely outcome, as suggested above, is that revoking Article 50 will require agreement from the other member states, and quite possibly unanimous agreement. That makes a huge difference, not least because it would require the commencement of a formal/legal process (that currently doesn't exist) in order to achieve it - and time is now very short for that happen. If unanimous agreement of all EU27 member states is required, then that means that every member state effectively has a veto over the process, as opposed to a mere qualified majority, which effectively would mean that no member state could veto the process. If that turns out to be the case, then it becomes an entirely new negotiation process by default.

 

[Tired Tyres]

More on the ECJ ruling over revoking Article 50...

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...to-rule-on-whether-article-50-can-be-reversed

That's the very last chance to stay in the EU gone then. What we'd have to concede, 27 times over, makes it impossible.

 

[Touring Mars]

That's the very last chance to stay in the EU gone then. What we'd have to concede, 27 times over, makes it impossible.

The ruling hasn't been made yet, so it might turn out to be different - I don't expect it will be different, but it isn't done and dusted just yet.

The whole unanimity thing is crucial too. The ECJ could rule, as is very likely IMO, that Article 50 cannot be revoked unilaterally, but that it only requires a qualified majority of other member states to approve it. If that was the case, I would expect that it would be agreed without too much fuss, since no one member state (and I'm looking at France and Spain here) would be able to block it in return for a big concession.

 

[Tired Tyres]

The ruling hasn't been made yet, so it might turn out to be different - I don't expect it will be different, but it isn't done and dusted just yet.

The whole unanimity thing is crucial too. The ECJ could rule, as is very likely IMO, that Article 50 cannot be revoked unilaterally, but that it only requires a qualified majority of other member states to approve it. If that was the case, I would expect that it would be agreed without too much fuss, since no one member state (and I'm looking at France and Spain here) would be able to block it in return for a big concession.

The trouble is you can make a completely good argument that to reverse such a decision would affect all 27 states therefore....

 

[baldgye]

Yes, but notice that they don't say how or under what conditions.

Why would they? So far we've barely been able to give them the conditions of us leaving and have consistently said we cannot reverse it because it's the will of the people! This is them holding out the olive branch, Brexit hurts everyone (well the vast majority) so it's in everyone's interest for it to not happen...

No... it is possible that Brexit can be halted without the 'unilateral option', but clearly there is a major difference between being able to unilaterally halt the process and requiring agreement (either partial or unanimous) from the other member states.

How is that an issue? The EU leaders have said that the door is open to prevent this... reversing it wont open us up to conceding everything because that would simply lead us back down the road of no-deal...

You're suggesting that, despite what the EU leaders have said and other members of state and the fundamental principals the EU was based around, that the EU would (assuming we tried to reverse it) use Brexit to strip the UK bare of it's powers and rights as a current EU member and we'd be helpless?

They have continued to offer us a way out and we've ignored it ...now it's we get to choose to stay regardless of what the EU want (which as they've said, is for us to stay a member) or we'll get metaphorically bent-over because the EU haven't ahead-of-time outlined in legal documentation what they're 'offer' would be and had it signed by every member state?

 

[Touring Mars]

You're suggesting that, despite what the EU leaders have said and other members of state and the fundamental principals the EU was based around, that the EU would (assuming we tried to reverse it) use Brexit to strip the UK bare of it's powers and rights as a current EU member and we'd be helpless?

Pretty much.

There is a world of difference between merely stating that the 'door is open' and what that actually entails. The very fact that the ECJ is ruling on Article 50 next week is proof that the matter is not settled yet - in other words, Tusk, Juncker et al. can say whatever they want, but it doesn't mean much if the ECJ turn around and flatly contradict them.

What Tusk et al. are doing is called diplomacy - but unfortunately the EU is a legal order and no amount of diplomacy changes that fact.

I do, however, agree that it would be contrary to the spirit of the EU's founding principles if the Brexit process became an opportunity to strip the UK of its current membership terms - but again, there's a vast difference between 'what ought to be' and 'what is' - the fact is that reversing Brexit will hand the EU27 with a unique (and probably irresistible) opportunity to extract concessions from the UK, and the ECJ ruling may well make that a very real possibility.

The trouble is you can make a completely good argument that to reverse such a decision would affect all 27 states therefore....

It is also a question of how triggering Article 50 in the first place affects the other member states, and how that could potentially be used as leverage by individual member states - knowing that they could revoke it whenever they wanted runs the risk of turning Article 50 into a diplomatic weapon.

 

[baldgye]

Pretty much.

There is a world of difference between merely stating that the 'door is open' and what that actually entails. The very fact that the ECJ is ruling on Article 50 next week is proof that the matter is not settled yet - in other words, Tusk, Juncker et al. can say whatever they want, but it doesn't mean much if the ECJ turn around and flatly contradict them.

What Tusk et al. are doing is called diplomacy - but unfortunately the EU is a legal order and no amount of diplomacy changes that fact.

I do, however, agree that it would be contrary to the spirit of the EU's founding principles if the Brexit process became an opportunity to strip the UK of its current membership terms - but again, there's a vast difference between 'what ought to be' and 'what is' - the fact is that reversing Brexit will hand the EU27 with a unique (and probably irresistible) opportunity to extract concessions from the UK, and the ECJ ruling may well make that a very real possibility.

The very fact the ECJ is ruling on this is literally only because at the moment our government refuse point blank to discus the option with the EU. This is has been brought forward so that if there was an general election Brexit could be quickly and easily reversed by the incumbent and allow British politics to focus on the actual country and it's actual problems.

The ECJ ruling and the push for it existed after Junker and Tusk said the door was open.
The fact you have to jump through so many logical hoops in order to push this idea that the EU would try and use a reversal of Brexit to get one over on us and force our hand to concede on... well concede on what? ..EXACTLY!


The only real possibility with the ECJ ruling is that we get an easy out that doesn't involve us asking former friends and colleagues to allow us to remain. It gifts us the possibility to save-face, which we shouldn't be granted.

 

[Touring Mars]

The very fact the ECJ is ruling on this is literally only because at the moment our government refuse point blank to discus the option with the EU.

Erm, no.

The fact that the ECJ needs to rule on it is because the wording of Article 50 is so vague that it doesn't categorically state whether it can be revoked unilaterally. It has nothing to do with the UK's negotiating stance.

The ECJ ruling and the push for it existed after Junker and Tusk said the door was open.

The ruling hasn't been made yet.

The fact you have to jump through so many logical hoops in order to push this idea that the EU would try and use a reversal of Brexit to get one over on us and force our hand to concede on... well concede on what? ..EXACTLY!

Gibraltar, Schengen, the Euro, whether the UK should be allowed to trigger Article 50 again, whether the France/UK border should be in Calais or Dover, the status of Northern Ireland, the UK's rebate, fishing rights... there's an endless line of concessions that other member states could demand from the UK.

The point is not only that there are plenty of concessions the UK could make, but the fact that the ECJ's ruling next week could create the conditions by which these concessions can be demanded. I'm not saying they will be demanded, but whether it is even possible or not depends on what the ECJ ruling is and whether the UK decides to go down that route if and when the opportunity arises e.g. after a People's Vote.

The only real possibility with the ECJ ruling is that we get an easy out that doesn't involve us asking former friends and colleagues to allow us to remain.

No, that is categorically not the only possibility.

I presume you mean 'the only realistic possibility' - though I'm not sure I'd agree with that either.

 

[baldgye]

The fact that the ECJ needs to rule on it is because the wording of Article 50 is so vague that it doesn't categorically state whether it can be revoked unilaterally. It has nothing to do with the UK's negotiating stance.

My bad I'd read some poorly researched information and was lead to believe that this was pursued for other reasons. It's clear from the crowd funding page that this has been pursued due to the poor wording (like you said) and lack of any sort of planning.

The ruling hasn't been made yet.

Poor choice of words, though I'm not sure on reflection how to word it, the elevation of the case maybe?

Gibraltar, Schengen, the Euro, whether the UK should be allowed to trigger Article 50 again, whether the France/UK border should be in Calais or Dover, the status of Northern Ireland, the UK's rebate, fishing rights... there's an endless line of concessions that other member states could demand from the UK.

This however, is lunacy.
But I guess they could also force us to the metric system and ban the quarter-pounder...

 

[Touring Mars]

This however, is lunacy.
But I guess they could also force us to the metric system and ban the quarter-pounder...

Yes, but like I alluded to above, it is not the individual demands that may or may not exist or be made that is the problem - it is creating the conditions by which any demands can be made at all that is the problem.

Specifically, the chain of events needed to set up a situation where the UK is vulnerable to individual member states being able to make demands is:

• The ECJ rule that Article 50 cannot be revoked unilaterally and that it requires unanimous agreement from all member states
• May's deal is rejected by Parliament
• A second referendum is called and returns a result that demands revoking Article 50

If all three things happen, then the conditions for EU member states to start making demands of the UK will exist.

The key point is that demanding Article 50 be revoked would be fine if it didn't create the conditions by which the UK leaves itself in a situation where it has no choice but to concede to whatever demands may arise. Unless the ECJ rule that we can either revoke Article 50 unilaterally (very unlikely IMO) or that revoking Article 50 requires only a majority of member states to approve it, then a demand by the UK to revoke Article 50 would be extremely dangerous.

 

[Tired Tyres]

My bad I'd read some poorly researched information and was lead to believe that this was pursued for other reasons. It's clear from the crowd funding page that this has been pursued due to the poor wording (like you said) and lack of any sort of planning.

Poor choice of words, though I'm not sure on reflection how to word it, the elevation of the case maybe?



This however, is lunacy.
But I guess they could also force us to the metric system and ban the quarter-pounder...

You missed out driving on the wrong side of the road.

 

[baldgye]

Yes, but like I alluded to above, it is not the individual demands that may or may not be made that is the problem - it is creating the conditions by which any demands can be made at all that is the problem.

This is literally already the case... and what have we seen happen?
The EU have said, they want XY and Z, they made there demands clear before we even voted and they stuck to them. They haven't changed or moved the goal-posts.

Your paranoia perhaps eludes to the sad pathetic reality that perhaps we are incapable of trusting our closest allies and neighbours...

 

[Hun200kmh]

I find it difficult to conceive a situation where after two years of the EU institutions and a few more concerned countries preparing for Brexit and making public investments because of it (the dutch customs hired or are hiring 1000 extra officers, IIRC) suddenly the country that started the process might say "sorry chaps, carry on as you were, we won't do this".

Got to say that I would be glad if this happened (the UK remainning in the EU), but it would need some discussing, or else invoking article 50 can become a meaningless act for the one that does it (and that solely controls if it will be carried through to the end), and a serious problem for everyone else, never knowing if and how that will end.

 

[Touring Mars]

Your paranoia perhaps eludes to the sad pathetic reality that perhaps we are incapable of trusting our closest allies and neighbours...

I'm trying not to be insulted by your choice of language, but never mind.

It may well be the case that my worries are totally unfounded, but it is only sensible/fair to point out that these risks exist.

Creating the conditions by which individual EU member states can veto our future membership (as detailed above) coupled with a demand by the UK people to retain our membership (e.g. after a People's Vote) sets up an unfortunate situation whereby the UK may well be compelled to make concessions. That being the case, why wouldn't other member states act in their own interest (or in the collective interests of the EU) to make demands (or, perhaps more plausibly, impose new conditions) when they have the opportunity to do so? That's not paranoia on my behalf, it's merely stating that it is a very real possibility.

 

[baldgye]

I'm trying not to be insulted by your choice of language, but never mind.

It may well be the case that my worries are totally unfounded, but it is only sensible/fair to point out that these risks exist.

Creating the conditions by which individual EU member states can veto our future membership (as detailed above) coupled with a demand by the UK people to retain our membership (e.g. after a People's Vote) sets up an unfortunate situation whereby the UK may well be compelled to make concessions. That being the case, why wouldn't other member states act in their own interest (or in the collective interests of the EU) to make demands (or, perhaps more plausibly, impose new conditions) when they have the opportunity to do so? That's not paranoia on my behalf, it's merely stating that it is a very real possibility.

My use of language isn’t meant to offend you, it’s meant to highlight your point of view as I imagine it’s one shared by many.

We created these conditions and we are also creating these concessions.