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.

Why would the EU want to hamper trade?

Why don't they have free trade with the whole world? Protectionism, competitive advantage and domestic political expediency.

There's an echo in here.

Look at how the thirteen colonies responded to unfair customs duties. And look at them now. It’s time for the Brexit Tea Party.

The American colonies had custom duties, and no representation in Parliament. The UK has representation in Parliament, and no custom duties...

Look at how the thirteen colonies responded to unfair customs duties. And look at them now. It’s time for the Brexit Tea Party.

Are you suggesting we take up arms if we default to WTO rules with the EU?

I'll be sure to leave a note for my great-great-great-great-grandchildren to ask that they be grateful for the economic sacrifices made by the next generation or two to enable them to become the new USA (without its population, land or natural resources - even more impressive).

I think that 2 years is insufficient time to negotiate a bespoke UK/EU agreement, so I also think the Norway/EEA route is the likely initial outcome of Brexit. The wording of the referendum allows this. It enables business as usual while negotiations with the eu and the rest of the world continue.

This would be a hard sell politically but could be spun as temporary e.g. for one term of parliament, maybe with another referendum at the end.

If we do stay I think that the UK would be advised to push too reform the exit procedure to provide clarity. We should know what an exit would look like. No nation should feel the need to remain in the EU due to the fear of the unknown. The EU should have more confidence in itself than that.

Post-brexit, If we have trouble negotiating a good deal, then the Euroskeptics will holler "See that's why it's a good thing we left because these people are such bastards / incompetents to deal with."

We should know what an exit would look like

This is an odd thing to say, because the procedures for leaving are established (although not yet tested in practice), and what an exit looks like depends very much on political decisions made not by the EU but by the UK. There are two existing models which a post-brexit UK could adopt with relatively little negotiation: EEA membership, or a "clean break" that would leave us trading on WTO terms. We already know what both these look like, at least in terms of the legal framework (their practical implications are of course harder to predict).

The big question is whether the UK could negotiate a halfway house that enabled it to continue to benefit from certain aspects of the single market. But such an agreement could only be reached by negotiation, and negotiation takes time - time that we won't have much of.

Good point lljkk It'll take as long as it takes. If the 2 years is exceeded, what are the EU going to do? Make us sit on the naughty step?

I expect that by 2018 there'll be more countries queuing up to hold their own referendums, maybe some already having voted to Leave. The UK will be ideally placed to head up that group in joint or phased exits.

The thirteen colonies point was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but the parallel I'd draw is the relative power - the jumped-up little upstart of the new Colonies daring to challenge the might of the gigantic British Empire. I do like "Brexit Tea Party" though

threedays I agree with your post, except for this part -

If we do stay I think that the UK would be advised to push too reform the exit procedure to provide clarity. We should know what an exit would look like. No nation should feel the need to remain in the EU due to the fear of the unknown. The EU should have more confidence in itself than that.

The problem is not the legal procedure, that part is pretty clear. The problem is figuring out what life would look like for Britain as a non-EU country. And surely that's not the EU's responsibility, that's for Britain to figure out.

If the 2 years is exceeded, what are the EU going to do? Make us sit on the naughty step?

I believe in this case the UK would automatically revert to standard WTO rules. Which is probably not absolutely awful, but not great either. Certainly not as good as specifically negotiated trading agreement that play to each party's strengths and weaknesses.

I do like "Brexit Tea Party" though

It does have a good ring to it, but unfortunately I think the current American Tea Partiers have rather ruined the phrase!

If the 2 years is exceeded, what are the EU going to do?

This is easy to answer as the rules for exiting are laid out. Exit occurs after two years, unless a withdrawal agreement is concluded sooner, or unless EU states agree unanimously to extend the period. With no agreement, the UK would revert to being just like any other non-EU country with no existing trade agreements. I disagree with chalalala here as I think this would, in practice, be the worst possible scenario. However I also think it's an unlikely scenario, as I think a post-brexit government simply couldn't allow this to happen - it would be politically suicidal.

with no agreement, the UK would revert to being just like any other non-EU country with no existing trade agreements. I disagree with chalalala here as I think this would, in practice, be the worst possible scenario

but there isn't such a thing as "no trade agreement", right, there's always the default WTO rules?

the "not completely awful, but not great" comment was just my entirely uninformed guess, very happy to be corrected.

but there isn't such a thing as "no trade agreement", right, there's always the default WTO rules

I think it's helpful to think of the WTO as a basic framework that aims to promote fair trade rather than free trade.

In practice because of the levels of integration between the UK and EU economies, it's impossible to imagine the UK simply refusing to negotiate a withdrawal agreement and exiting with no agreement at all.

There's a legal discussion of the process of leaving and some of the big issues here:

eulawanalysis.blogspot.fr/2016/01/member-states-right-to-decision-on.html

and here

eulawanalysis.blogspot.fr/2014/12/article-50-teu-uses-and-abuses-of.html

In practice because of the levels of integration between the UK and EU economies, it's impossible to imagine the UK simply refusing to negotiate a withdrawal agreement and exiting with no agreement at all

And in that situation we would be on the (very) wrong side of the power differential, unfortunately.

Article 50 is deliberately designed to favour the continuing EU.

that makes sense Mistigri, thanks for the links

I dont think enough of what the outcomes actually are and too much impassioned we will be able to set our own rules.

Once that article 50 is enacted there are only specific outcomes, i have seen people talking about post brexit waiting for a general election and parties putting their cases forward - thats just not a goer in the short term.

Maybe in the short term they could sort out the status of all the UK people in europe (those pensioners 'draining' the Spanish economy ;) and the quarter of a million EU people who work in the public sector and god knows how many in the private.

Maybe in the short term they could sort out the status of all the UK people in europe (those pensioners 'draining' the Spanish economy ;) and the quarter of a million EU people who work in the public sector and god knows how many in the private.

And how is this to be done, except as part of a withdrawal agreement?

That's what I mean when I say that it would be politically suicidal to leave without a withdrawal agreement.

Thats an interesting question mistigri i don't know wether we can:
part agree some of the laws before the 2 years run out?
or its whatever the EU want at the risk of default to WTO rules.

BreakingDad a withdrawal agreement can be agreed and brexit concluded before the 2 years are up but I don't think anyone believes that is realistic.

It's not a question of just agreeing to whatever the EU says, but in practice in trade negotiations, the small/less powerful party tends to be a deal-taker rather than a deal-maker. That's not to say that a negotiated agreement can't be achieved, just that it would be difficult (certainly within a 2 year time frame), and that it will involve compromiss. It would also be costly, in terms of government and civil service resources.

Mitigri - im a remainer - Im with you in that I dont think we have such a strong bargaining position as brexiters think we do. Much of what we do will just get resourced from within the EU giving all the other countries industries a boost.

If we ignore all the hyperbole, a significant issue for the Brexit campaign (not for me!) is EU immigration. If you ignore the fact that the demographics show we will not have enough young people paying taxes to pay my pension. Germany is worse off for this than us, but we will still have the same problem.

If we exit we will have no control over EU immigration, as any trade agreement with the EU will require the free movement of people. Just like Norway and Switzerland etc. The EU will never agree a trade agreement without this.

Brexit and no trade agreement with Europe, and many companies will go bust. That is where the recession and job losses will come from. Due to this and several years of political and economic uncertainty, shares will tumble and the pound will lose a lot of value. We will also become a 'tin pot' nation, with much less influence in the world.

As I understand it the procedure for brexit is essentially serve notice then negotiate terms with the eu for 2 years or maybe more.

Nobody thinks 2 years is sufficient. There would be chaos which could harm all parties.

So while the procedure may be clear the outcome of the procedure is anything but. This uncertainty enables both sides of the brexit debate to pick their own narrative. Its also why I think if there is a brexit we will end up with the worst of both worlds.

Thats why I think the procedure is flawed and should be reformed. You could have a procedure that spells out the position on exit and provides reasonable time frames. I think this links to the idea of a multi speed eu where in and out are relative rather than binary.

If leaving the eu is like a divorce it would be better to have a pre-nup.

As I understand it the procedure for brexit is essentially serve notice then negotiate terms with the eu for 2 years or maybe more.

Actually, Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty permits up to 2 years negotiation that could be extended or even curtailed, with the agreement of both parties. Until we formally leave at the end of those negotiations, the current EU arrangements remain in place.

If the vote is to Leave, we do not have to immediately invoke Article 50. We could start discussing potential trade agreements with other countries and, invoke Article 50 at a later date. As we are currently the 5th largest economy in the world and, out of the EU, we could offer favourable deals to trading partners, I forsee no difficulty in continuing our trade with the EU countries and extending our trade with the rest of the world

The EU has trade deals with lots of countries without free movement of people.