Exit timetable and consultations?

[BreakingDad77]

God forbid we brexit, but if we did the exit timetable is quite tight - two years from when we give notice, but can be extended if every EC member agrees. (iceland took this amount of time and they much smaller and less complex than UK).

So do we actually have time for public consultations etc, once we give notice? Isn't there concern stuff will just get rushed through or just no deal met.

This does though also mean we could change our minds and stay in I guess if EU are unsurprisingly tough.

We could though have a head ache dealing with all the expat and the 250,000 in our public services. As from what I have read- no deal means we revert to standard WTO terms and will need to start wacking tariffs on things.

It will be complex and the Irish will be upset and yet we will need to do a lot of border related negotiations with them.

It'll be fantastic to get our teeth into making legislation that will suit us rather than kowtowing to and being overridden by the EU. Bring it on.

It'll be fantastic to get our teeth into making legislation that will suit us rather than kowtowing to and being overridden by the EU. Bring it on

You've got to get an exit deal that doesn't see you defaulting to WTO terms on Year 3 Day 1 because you didn't give Latvia everything they wanted first, though.

We would not be negotiating from a position of strength. And yes the timeframe is incredibly tight.

Supposedly it took Switzerland 9 yrs to negotiate trade deals with EU. So I guess they were under WTO rules until then (about 2001). To be fair their economy didn't fall apart.

To be fair their economy didn't fall apart.

But they were starting from an external position - rather than half our economy being exposed to a market that would find our goods and services much more expensive if we had to revert to WTO rules.

It's not that economic survival (and prosperity) isn't possible outside the EU. It's the potential economic shock and subsequent forcedrestructuring of our economy post-Brexit at a time when, if we crash out of the EEA, we'd lose all the other bilateral EU trade deals as well and have to start from scratch.

For me there are two economic questions: first, would we be more prosperous outside of the EU in the long term and second, if we are more prosperous is it enough to compensate for the negative impact on our economy in the short and medium term. Is the payoff worth the risk and the pain.

I've seen nothing beyond optimistic rhetoric to suggest that the answer to the first question is yes; and I am deeply worried that the answer to the second question is a resounding 'no'. These are people's jobs and livelihoods we're talking about here. The loose and unevidenced promise of marginally higher prosperity fifteen years' hence is probably not going to be much comfort when people lose their jobs, can't afford their housing payments and all benefits have been further slashed due to extended austerity.

Two years is an almost impossibly short time for negotiations of this type, especially if as seems likely the start of serious work on the withdrawal agreement is delayed by a Tory leadership election. For this reason if I were a betting person I would put money on negotiations rapidly converging on the only available "off the shelf" solution ie EEA membership.

This does though also mean we could change our minds and stay in I guess if EU are unsurprisingly tough.

The jury is out on this. EU lawyers seem to think that once article 50 is invoked, there is no going back. The House of Lords thinks it may be possible to revoke withdrawal. Don't count on it.

PS it was Greenland, not Iceland (the latter has never been an EU member). Greenland is a territory of 50k people, not an independent state ... And negotiations still took 2 years.

If withdrawal can't be revoked, could the UK start negotiations without officially withdrawing, see what deal they can get, and then put that to a referendum?

Of course were the UK to reject the deal in a second referendum, it would all have been a terrible waste of energy and money. Good for lawyers, I guess.

But at least this would give people a real choice with clearly defined options. Right now it's EU vs Unknown, it's quite ridiculous that voters don't actually know what the alternative option on the table is, how is it possible to make an informed choice in this situation?

Especially if the decision ends up being the EEA. If the choice on 23 June was EU vs EEA, the immigration card would be lost, and it would likely be a resounding "Remain". (Which is why Leave will never admit the EEA is a likely outcome, of course)

If withdrawal can't be revoked, could the UK start negotiations without officially withdrawing, see what deal they can get, and then put that to a referendum?

I'm not sure - you could have informal negotiations maybe? But formal negotiations aren't sparked until Article 50 is invoked.

I'm not sure about the politics of an 'are you really sure?' referendum either, especially in the countdown to the 2020 general.

Yeah it's probably wishful thinking on my part. I can see it'd be difficult in practice.

If withdrawal can't be revoked, could the UK start negotiations without officially withdrawing, see what deal they can get, and then put that to a referendum?

Do you think this is politically possible? I can only see two possible scenarios in the event of a brexit vote: either Cameron immediately invokes article 50, as he said he would do, or he prevaricates and a Tory rebellion leads to him being replaced with someone who is prepared to pull the trigger.

I think a second referendum would be politically very difficult, yes. Depends what happens with the Tory leadership, amongst other things. That being said Boris originally suggested it, so maybe not entirely impossible?..

Even the Brexit Tories know it makes sense to buy time for negotiations, this is Gove speaking in April

“The process of change is in our hands”, he says. “It has been argued that the moment Britain votes to leave a process known as ‘Article 50’ is triggered whereby the clock starts ticking and every aspect of any new arrangement with the EU must be concluded within 2 years of that vote being recorded – or else…

“But there is no requirement for that to occur – quite the opposite. Logically, in the days after a Vote to Leave the Prime Minister would discuss the way ahead with the Cabinet and consult Parliament before taking any significant step. Preliminary, informal, conversations would take place with the EU to explore how best to proceed. It would not be in any nation’s interest artificially to accelerate the process and no responsible government would hit the start button on a two-year legal process without preparing appropriately. … We can set the pace.”

We can but hope! I think the 'it is in no nation's interest' is optimistic though. I can think of a couple of countries for whom a Britain trading under WTO rules may confer competitive advantage on their own industries. Plus the need for the optics in French and German elections.

Is it wrong to find the idea that the EEA model will prevail curiously depressing? 'Hello, Mr Junker, it's Britain. We took a vote, and we'd like to give up our influence please. No, everything else pretty much as it already was, please.'

Is it wrong to find the idea that the EEA model will prevail curiously depressing?

It depends why you think we're having the referendum.

This referendum isn't being held because the Tory party sudden discovered a commitment to letting the people decide. It's happening mainly because Cameron needed to hobble Ukip in order to win the general election. Do you really believe that Boris thinks we should make a clean break with the EU? He doesn't (look at his record on this issue) and he knows perfectly well that we won't.

EEA membership would be an appropriately cynical end result of a depressingly cynical process.

Even the Brexit Tories know it makes sense to buy time for negotiations

That's true, but they still face reelection in four years (or sooner if the tory-on-tory war goes nuclear) and they have made some awfully big promises to a lot of angry and frustrated voters!

EEA membership would be an appropriately cynical end result of a depressingly cynical process.

Very, very true.

It'll be fantastic to get our teeth into making legislation that will suit us rather than kowtowing to and being overridden by the EU. Bring it on.

So that's the European Court of human rights out the window - I quite like having the right to life.

gu.com/p/4jbjd/fb

Should'a said, this is a link to a timetable for Brexit after an out vote.
gu.com/p/4jbjd/fb

So that's the European Court of human rights out the window - I quite like having the right to life.

The European Court of Human Rights is not an EU body. Yes it's confusing with the similar Europe-type names, people often misunderstand this. The court upholds human rights as set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. Whether or not we leave the EU, the UK will still be a party to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Human Rights: The European Convention

they have made some awfully big promises to a lot of angry and frustrated voters!

This is true, and pretty worrying... if the Brexit Tories end up in charge, they'll struggle to justify not delivering on their anti-immigration campaign. Which makes the EEA option politically difficult for them.

Although, Boris has been rather careful to focus his argument on trade and sovereignty, so he may have some room for manoeuvre here.

thanks fusspot, well that's pretty dire and scarily realistic... although of course it's the Guardian, they're unlikely to say it'll be a quick and easy divorce.

The EU will respond as it does to any crisis, and convene an emergency summit

I may be a Remain cheerleader, but this still made me chuckle.

Did anyone see Corbyn's somewhat guarded "support" for remain?? Vote remain on the 23rd and start reforming the EU on the 24th! Oppose TTIP.

Is the EU reformable....? Will Merkel and Hollande be around in 12months after their elections to make all the decisions?

The post-Brexit model is as yet undefined. No reason why it should be anything like Norway’s or Switzerland’s, seeing as the UK is nothing like either of those countries.

The doomsday scenario of everything being the same (except with no MEPs) just won’t happen. Why would the EU want to hamper trade? It would be an own goal for them, they’d damage their own economies. And anything they can do, we can do (better). Look at how the thirteen colonies responded to unfair customs duties. And look at them now. It’s time for the Brexit Tea Party.