Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[Touring Mars]

We created these conditions

Only partly. Clearly the ECJ ruling is of vital importance too.

and we are also creating these concessions.

No. If the UK faces making concessions in order to be allowed to revoke Article 50, then (obviously) that will be because of a demand made by another member state.

 

[baldgye]

Only partly. Clearly the ECJ ruling is of vital importance too.


No. If the UK faces making concessions in order to be allowed to revoke Article 50, then (obviously) that will be because of a demand made by another member state.

Brexit and this whole situation is on us. These concessions are ones you’ve made up (similar minded people too) not what the EU have proposed.

 

[Famine]

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?

See last week, Spain, Gibraltar.

 

[Touring Mars]

Brexit and this whole situation is on us.

Then you fundamentally misunderstand what the problem with revoking Article 50 is.

These concessions are ones you’ve made up (similar minded people too) not what the EU have proposed.

These are not hypothetical issues, nor have I 'made them up' - whether they are used as bargaining chips in any future negotiations over revoking Article 50 remains to be seen.

-

The Financial Times are reporting that the EU's lawyers have told the ECJ that the UK cannot revoke Article 50 unilaterally.

Source: https://www.ft.com/content/502d22a6-f22d-11e8-9623-d7f9881e729f (paywall)

The EU’s top lawyers have said the UK’s decision to leave the bloc cannot be unilaterally withdrawn, in a blow for anti-Brexit campaigners.

In a hearing at the European Court of Justice to decide whether the EU’s exit clause can be cancelled by the UK, lawyers from the European Council and Commission insisted that European government had to unanimously agree to any move from Britain to reverse its decision to leave the EU.

Hubert Legal, the European Council’s top lawyer, insisted that unlike the voluntary decision to trigger Article 50, cancelling it would require the unanimous support from all 27 governments in order to protect the interests of the EU as a whole. “There is no parallelism between the right to notify and the right to take back”, said Mr Legal.

He's even called Mr. Legal


The article also says, however, that the ECJ is unlikely to issue a final verdict until after the Commons vote on December 11th.

 

[Famine]

He's even called Mr. Legal

La determinisme nominatif.

 

[baldgye]

I am enjoying the horrifying reality of living with hypernormalisation.

These are not hypothetical issues, nor have I 'made them up' - whether they are used as bargaining chips in any future negotiations over revoking Article 50 remains to be seen.

See last week, Spain, Gibraltar.

Yes indeed Spain and Gibraltar are good evidence for the EU's future change in stance and how they will subjugate the United Kingdom in order to keep us within the tight grasp of the EU.

 

[Famine]

I am enjoying the horrifying reality of living with hypernormalisation.

The current state of play in Italy, Greece and the Netherlands (and perhaps Catalunya) is indeed indicative of hypernormalisation of the EU in the rest of the EU28.

But that's kind of what sparked all of this. The referendum wasn't just cooked up from nowhere, in or out. Cameron determined that it would be better to fix it from the inside and negotiated a new role for the UK within Europe. The referendum was between remain with the new deal or leave. The remain argument was essentially "It's broken, but we want to fix it from the inside", while the leave argument was "THEY SAID IT'S BROKEN! IT'S BROKEN IT'S BROKEN IT'S BROKEN!".

Yes indeed Spain and Gibraltar are good evidence for the EU's future change in stance and how they will subjugate the United Kingdom in order to keep us within the tight grasp of the EU.

I don't really know what point you're making here, but the fact is that Spain threatened to veto* May's deal with the EU27 unless it was given a further power of veto over Gibraltar's inclusion in any deal the UK made with the EU27 after Brexit. Any deal the UK makes with the EU27 must be specifically accepted to apply to Gibraltar by Spain.

It's an example of one of the many ancient gripes held by European member states against one another, used as a bargaining chip - and lightly ironic of Spain to get its bragas in a bunch over, given it holds three very similar territories in Morocco (Ceuta, Melilla and Penon de Velez de la Gomera); Ceuta is literally inverse Gibraltar... A lot of the gripes hark back to the sea-faring empires of the Elizabethan era - Spain, Portugal, France, "England" - but there are a few more recent ones too. It's not "the EU" as an entity, but the member states of it.

In a situation where there's a second referendum, the British people vote to Remain and cancel Article 50, and the European Court of Justice has ruled that Article 50 cannot be cancelled unilaterally, there'll then be another round of negotiations between the UK and the EU27 to allow the cancellation of Article 50.

Nobody can really predict how that will go. Maybe the EU27 will say "Come on back in!". Maybe Germany will demand reparations for the bombing of Dresden, France will demand joint control of Iles de la Manche, and Denmark will demand we give back York before they sign on the dotted line. Maybe it'll be somewhere in-between.

Tusk has indicated the no hard-feelings option. He also indicated that the EU27 would accept May's deal without qualms, but then we had to give Spain control over Gibraltar's future EU trade deals or they'd have vetoed* it despite 26 other signatures. And Tusk is no longer in office in November 2019.



I am ultimately baffled by the whole Brexit thing. Whether being in or out is better escapes me, but the whole deal/no deal thing seems to come down to the fact that the UK wants free trade with the EU but not be part of the free travel area, while the EU won't back down on the four central tenets of free movement for goods, money, services and people. It's particularly odd, because the EU has free trade agreements with nations outside the EU28 where there is no freedom of travel for EU citizens, and we weren't really in Schengen anyway.

The point of it all kind of escapes me, except for the UK being outside of the jurisdiction of the ECJ and no longer part of the ECHR.


*Although it's not a technical veto, more of an administrative one; Spain couldn't have stopped the agreement in reality

 

[Dotini]

I am enjoying the horrifying reality of living with hypernormalisation.

The existential status of the UK seems to be at a crossroads. Everything is possible, but nothing is quite real yet.

"By knowing that the danger isn't real, people can take the experience of fear to new levels of imagination and enjoyment."
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/30/...ality-why-people-like-terrify-themselves.html

 

[baldgye]

I don't really know what point you're making here

Reversing Brexit would be in Spain's vested interest.

 

[Famine]

Reversing Brexit would be in Spain's vested interest.

Yet Spain has coveted Gibraltar for centuries. The question is whether it would be willing to forego fishing in our waters and some Premier League salaries in order to break the deadlock on Gibraltar and start the process of getting it "back".

 

[Touring Mars]

Reversing Brexit would be in Spain's vested interest.

True, but the question is how much of a gamble would it be for Spain to tag on a few much-coveted extras to their approval of UK's request to reverse Article 50? They may consider it a safe bet, given that the power to revoke and/or extend Article 50 would lie at the feet of the EU27 member states - in other words, as soon as the UK were to request that Article 50 is revoked, the possibility of a Hard Brexit recedes and thus the risk to the EU27 member states becomes minimal.

I reckon it is likely that, if the UK were to request that Article 50 is revoked, the EU27 would in the first instance agree to an extension* that would avoid the UK crashing out without a deal, thus avoiding inflicting unnecessary pain on all EU members. But what would happen after that? Technically, the EU member states could continue to extend the Article 50 process rather than simply revoke it no questions asked - and I'm presuming that the UK won't have a say in this.

That is a scary prospect though - it literally turns Article 50 on its head and gives the EU27 a de facto choice on whether and when to kick the UK out of the EU if they want to. It may turn out that reversing Article 50 is more literal than anyone may have expected.

-

(*Extending Article 50 would be relatively easy as there's no reason why any EU27 member state would oppose it, therefore extending could be done virtually overnight if necessary - but Revoking/Reversing Article 50 could be extremely problematic.)

 

[Liquid]

Every one goes on about Yes, Minister but The New Statesman had a great prophetic video too. This is a UKIP party conference, distilled Farage.

One use of language:

 

[Touring Mars]

Anyone who has any doubts about the EU's future attitude towards the UK may wish (or not, as the case may be) to read this article in the FT today (if it were not for the paywall, anyway...) - it's a sobering assessment of where the UK already is in terms of our vulnerability to future EU demands, let alone where we could end up if certain scenarios play out. While this article is about the forthcoming negotiations over a future trade deal between the EU and UK, it could just as easily apply to all future negotiations, including what might happen if the UK were to attempt to reverse Article 50. The idea that the EU member states are inherently inclined to 'play nice' when there is a golden opportunity to exploit the UK's uniquely vulnerable position is looking increasingly like wishful thinking.

https://www.ft.com/content/8b4c387e-f181-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d

Here are some highlights, since I cannot quote the article in full:

"The power is with us,” said Martin Selmayr (Secretary-General of the European Commission). Mr Selmayr’s breezy confidence came from another factor: advantages hard-wired into Britain’s withdrawal treaty that amplify the EU’s clout.

Commission negotiators stress the importance of a sequence of political cliff-edges that Britain must traverse and which run into the 2020s. At each point, the UK will face the threat of serious economic disruption unless it gives up the negotiating cards it has left: fish, money and the regulatory freedom to undercut EU standards.

For Emmanuel Macron, the French president, the dearth of choices available to Britain offers a “lever” to secure EU interests.

Mr Macron said that, without such concessions, there would be no free trade agreement with the EU.

 

[baldgye]

...including what might happen if the UK were to attempt to reverse Article 50.

“The power is with us,” said Martin Selmayr, according to one note of a “sherpa” meeting on Friday.

Given the EU’s economy is six times larger than Britain’s, such views are common enough in Brussels.

 

[Liquid]

And yet:

Liam Fox - The free trade agreement we sign with the EU should be one of the easiest in human history. (audio)

The plethora of other cringeworthy past quotes from David Davis (“We're not really interested in a transition deal, but we'll consider one to be kind to the EU.”) ("Within minutes of a vote for Brexit, CEOs would be knocking down Chancellor Merkel’s door demanding access to the British market."), Boris Johnson ("The cost of getting out would be virtually nil and the cost of staying in would be very high.") and others make for uncomfortable reading and hearing.

And this is what the referendum was sold on; dog-whistle racial politics and this ridiculous belief that the world map is still pink and nations will be falling over themselves to queue up and sign trade agreements with the UK. It couldn't possibly be difficult because everyone loves us!

 

[baldgye]

It couldn't possibly be difficult because we are so powerful!

Fixed

 

[Touring Mars]

Sorry, but I have no idea what your point is - it would help if you were a little more constructive in explaining your point rather than just posting a quote and leaving us to guess what the point our trying to make is.

What is clear is that you are obviously skeptical that there are any possible circumstances under which EU member states might make demands in return for changes to the Brexit process, be it a complete reversal of Article 50 or, as is considerably more likely (if not inevitable already), an extension to the transition period.

The shadow chancellor John McDonnell has literally just asked a question in the House of Commons that illustrates my point. He just asked if the government has done any analysis on the effects of extending the transition period "given that there may be no limit to what the EU could ask for in return for such an extension". Now, I appreciate that this point might be something that sounds like Brexiteer scaremongering, but this is coming from the Shadow Chancellor!

 

[baldgye]

Sorry, but I have no idea what your point is - it would help if you were a little more constructive in explaining your point rather than just posting a quote and leaving us to guess what the point of it is.

What is clear is that you are obviously skeptical that there are any possible circumstances under which EU member states might make demands in return for changes to the Brexit process, be it a complete reversal of Article 50 or, as is considerably more likely (if not inevitable already), an extension to the transition period.

The shadow chancellor John McDonnell has literally just asked a question in the House of Commons that illustrates my point. He just asked if the government has done any analysis on the effects of extending the transition period "given that there may be no limit to what the EU could ask for in return for such an extension". Now, I appreciate that this point might be something that sounds like Brexiteer scaremongering, but this is coming from the Shadow Chancellor!

I read the article, the article outlines how the EU would negotiate details for Brexit, something they don't want to happen and have been repeatedly and publicly critical off.
They will and have made it as bad a deal as is reasonable for us to leave because that is in their power and interests.
This doesn't suddenly mean, that if we reverse (or attempt to) Brexit, those same terms and stances will be adopted.

"given that there may be no limit to what the EU could ask for in return for such an extension"

For negotiating leaving the EU.

 

[Famine]

Don't forget though, the EU's economy might be six times larger than the UK's but, whether we leave on no deal or May's deal, that means the EU's economy will shrink by 12.5% overnight. That's going to sting somewhat, so ancient grouses or not the EU27 need to protect themselves from that blow. It's simply not in the EU's interests to have the UK leave (among other things because it paves the way for Italy and others), so they will want as much out of it as they can get.

At this point though, the only thing that would seem to get the UK out of the EU in the way it wants - ending freedom of movement, leaving the ECHR and ending the control of the ECJ - while not surrendering things like fishing rights and control of Gibraltar is the no deal option. It causes a load of issues like the EU borders between Ireland and Northern Ireland (particularly because of the GFA) and in Dover, UK participation in European projects like Euratom, ESA and even Airbus/Eurofighter.


That will lead to trade chaos, at least in the short term, as we have to revert from the EU28 trading rules to WTO trading rules. That's painted as disastrous, but isn't... particularly. WTO rules means the UK will have to trade with other nations without prejudice, as opposed to being in the EU28 where we have free-trade with the rest of the EU and can set tariffs on goods from outside the EU (WTO rules means countries cannot discriminate against other countries, but trading bloc like the EU can). The down side is that we will face tariffs with the EU, and the up side is that we can impose tariffs on the EU.

There's a pretty reasonable chance that, given the volume of trade across the channel, France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany will not want that to be a long-term state of affairs. The UK is Germany's top trading partner for both import and export, and if that's made more difficult Germany's economy will disproportionately suffer, and the major ports won't want the volume of traffic to shrink either. But this is something that can only really be discussed once the UK has actually left.

 

[Liquid]

the EU borders between Ireland and Northern Ireland (particularly because of the GFA) and in Dover

And Holyhead. A major passenger and cargo port with Ireland for us.

Whatever 🤬 Wales is in, a majority voting to leave and suffering from buyer's remorse, Holyhead itself was one of the areas that did not and gets no coverage or help apart from in the Irish media.

 

[Touring Mars]

I read the article, the article outlines how the EU would negotiate details for Brexit, something they don't want to happen and have been repeatedly and publicly critical off.
They will and have made it as bad a deal as is reasonable for us to leave because that is in their power and interests.
This doesn't suddenly mean, that if we reverse (or attempt to) Brexit, those same terms and stances will be adopted.

Thanks for the explanation.

As I have already said, I'm not saying that any EU member state will necessarily make any demands in return for their acquiescence on changes to the Brexit process - but the point is that depending on our next moves and the ruling of the ECJ, it is possible (likely, even) that we will soon find ourselves in a situation where demands can be made.

I accept the point that it is not in the interests of the EU to block an attempt by the UK to reverse the Brexit process, but my point is that the ECJ ruling is likely to create a circumstance whereby individual member states could block the EU in their own national interest, in the fairly safe knowledge that ultimately the EU will also get what it wants/needs too - in other words, the UK will ultimately be allowed in, but under new terms that not only benefit the EU, but could end up delivering one-off concessions to individual member states as well. Indeed, it has already happened to some extent with Spain.

For negotiating leaving the EU.

Extending the transition period would be a necessary first step in order to avoid Brexit and allow time for a second referendum to be held - in other words, it applies just as much for us leaving the EU as trying not to crash out.

You also seem to be under the impression that the UK's negotiating position will be as strong if not stronger if we reverse course than if we proceed with Brexit. Nothing could be further from the truth, and that is the crux of the problem... we will literally have no leverage and the likes of Macron and Sanchez know that perfectly well already.

 

[baldgye]

Extending the transition period would be a necessary first step in order to avoid Brexit and allow time for a second referendum to be held - in other words, it applies just as much for us leaving the EU as trying not to crash out.

Agreed, but thus far our government has ruled out remaining...

 

[baldgye]

I remember being rubbished and belittled by people (not on here) when suggesting that Brexit would make this country worse off.

 

[Tired Tyres]

I remember being rubbished and belittled by people (not on here) when suggesting that Brexit would make this country worse off.

They are forecasts. I thought it was inevitable that leaving would make us worse off until we can negotiate trade deals? I mean, it is an Economic Union we are leaving.

 

[Liquid]

They are forecasts. I thought it was inevitable that leaving would make us worse off until we can negotiate trade deals? I mean, it is an Economic Union we are leaving.

But... but... we can have all trade deals sewn up the day we leave. Sort it all out over a cup of tea.

David Davis, John Redwood, Liam Fox and Boris Johnson said so.

 

[baldgye]

But... but... we can have all trade deals sewn up the day we leave. Sort it all out over a cup of tea.

AND! Because we are the Royal United Kingdom of England! We can negotiate better deals solo than the worlds biggest economy! We only have 700 odd to figure out, cushde mate... then the EU'll come crawling back to us and we'll be able to have the Queen on their Euro's!

 

[Liquid]

AND! Because we are the Royal United Kingdom of England! We can negotiate better deals solo than the worlds biggest economy! We only have 700 odd to figure out, cushde mate... then the EU'll come crawling back to us and we'll be able to have the Queen on their Euro's!

To be honest, joining the Euro has never really troubled me. Not for any economic reasons, more that if a country really doesn't want to join that is obligated to do so, they just deliberately fail to meet the joining criteria. There are 4-5 criteria that must be met over a certain number of consecutive quarters. Czechia, Poland and Hungary are three countries that definitely do that and I wouldn't be surprised if Romania, Bulgaria, Denmark and Sweden are the same. Oh sure, there's pressure from the ECB but if you don't meet the criteria then... "Oh noes! We can't join the Euro. What are the chances?!"

Slovakia has four EU land borders and three of them, the three I mentioned above, use a non-Euro currency. It's very easy for me to travel to Budapest or Prag but a bit of a pain to have to change money each time I go there. At least Austria is on the Euro too otherwise that really would be a pain; I'm in and out of there a lot and go to Vienna several times a year.

And if you do want to see the Queen on the Euro then get yourself one of these 2002 prototype sets like me:

 

[baldgye]

To be honest, joining the Euro has never really troubled me. Not for any economic reasons, more that if a country really doesn't want to join that is obligated to do so, they just deliberately fail to meet the joining criteria. There are 4-5 criteria that must be met over a certain number of consecutive quarters. Czechia, Poland and Hungary are three countries that definitely do that and I wouldn't be surprised if Romania, Bulgaria, Denmark and Sweden are the same. Oh sure, there's pressure from the ECB but if you don't meet the criteria then... "Oh noes! We can't join the Euro. What are the chances?!"

Slovakia has four EU land borders and three of them, the three I mentioned above, use a non-Euro currency. It's very easy for me to travel to Budapest or Prag but a bit of a pain to have to change money each time I go there. At least Austria is on the Euro too otherwise that really would be a pain; I'm in and out of there a lot and go to Vienna several times a year.

And if you do want to see the Queen on the Euro then get yourself one of these 2002 prototype sets like me:

To be fair I was joking, personally given that the £ is one of the strongest currency in the world, I'm not sure there is any need to change it

 

[lancia delta hf]

I remember being rubbished and belittled by people (not on here) when suggesting that Brexit would make this country worse off.

The Gaurdian! Must be 100% fact then. We will only be worse off because May has been negotiating for the last two years on behalf of the EU. We will all be better off when the EU is destroyed and see that happening.

 

[baldgye]

The Gaurdian! Must be 100% fact then.

They are reporting on what a government assessment has outlined...