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.

Isn't it strange that Gove said on Preston that 'We wouldn't have left the European Union by the end of this Parliament" in the event of a brevet.

Now the end of the parliament is supposedly in 2020 (if they serve 5 years).

The UK would have to leave 2 years from giving notice to EU. Does that mean, if there is a brexit, that they would only give notice in 3 years time?

Is the other scenario is that this government falls apart and a new election is called post haste?

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

Except that the power lies more with the EU on the decision to extend negotiations - it only needs one member state to veto.

Jassy, there is an interesting (and fairly even-handed) discussion of the power balance in exit negotiations here:

constitution-unit.com/2016/01/19/what-happens-if-we-vote-for-brexit/

Brilliant, thanks Misti.

A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

That is the key piece of information. We, and not the EU, trigger Article 50 - when it suits us to do so. So you could have the situation whereby everyone knows that the popular mandate is to Leave and the markets adjust accordingly but we do not actually initiate brexit discussions immediately.

I was interested to read that one of the leading Leave campaigners (I think it was Johnson but can't be bothered to go and check) has just said that the UK will not have left the EU by the end of this parliament (in 2020).

This is a new development and rather an important one, I think, as it clearly marks a shift in thinking in the Leave camp - confirmed by springing's post above (s/he will deny is but IMO based on his/her posting history it is likely that s/he is professionally involved with the leave campaign and is privy to the latest thinking on post-referendum strategy).

I'm not quite sure how this fits in with Cameron's earlier suggestion that as PM he would immediately move to invoke article 50. I would speculate that it means that Johnson and/or others plan to initiate a Tory party leadership contest immediately in the event of a brexit vote.

So clearly,

Sorry, posted too soon there ...

So clearly, the thinking among leave strategists now is moving towards actually not leaving the EU in a hurry, or possibly not at all ..

(s/he will deny is but IMO based on his/her posting history it is likely that s/he is professionally involved with the leave campaign and is privy to the latest thinking on post-referendum strategy).

Yes, I am denying it because your wild assumption is untrue. Strange as it may seem, some people have a love for their country that means they will happily give their time freely to restore it to being a sovereign, self-determining country.

So, no, I don't have special access to the post-Brexit thinking. But a quick look at the Vote Leave website tells you that they do not intend to immediately invoke Article 50.

In the event of a vote to leave, the leave campaign will aim to negotiate a unique position, tariff free trade with no unified laws on other issues and no right to work across borders (free movement for other reasons will continue). This will be in line with many other trade deals the EU has, but unique to the UK/EU.
The UK will then be free to negotiate deals with the rest of the world. These will be the same or better than the current EU deals in place.
The UK currently has an annual trade deficit of £24bn with the EU (EU imports into the UK higher then UK exports to the EU). If the EU want to damage this with tariffs, then they will suffer more, and the UK will actually benefit as UK people will buy UK goods rather than EU goods.

and the UK will actually benefit as UK people will buy UK goods rather than EU goods

and the UK will be able to source cheaper food and goods from outside the EEA, benefitting developing countries whose trade with the world is actually curtailed by the protectionism of the EU.

If you want to help poorer countries they need trade - not aid. The EU actively prevents us trading with them.

Springing Agree, world food prices are, on average, 15% lower than we pay in the EU. Every 3rd world nation will be delighted by us leaving and trading directly with them.

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

the leave campaign will aim to negotiate a unique position, tariff free trade with no unified laws on other issues and no right to work across borders (free movement for other reasons will continue). This will be in line with many other trade deals the EU has, but unique to the UK/EU.

caroldecker, I'm afraid you are being highly unrealistic here. Of course the EU has lots of trade deals without free movement. But these FTAs are not nearly as good a deal as being in the Single Market (they normally still have some tariffs, although lower, they don't include services, and most importantly they don't include financial services which are hugely important to the UK)

Even Switzerland, which had to accept free movement, still didn't get access to the Single Market when it comes to services.

So what you suggest would be very much unlike anything else the EU has in place, and it would be something the EU has specifically and repeatedly said it would never do. The Council recently reaffirmed that "the internal market and its four freedoms are indivisible."

Perhaps more importantly, it would be something that would be politically very difficult to achieve. Several countries would be opposed to the idea for domestic politics reasons (France and Poland, for instance), and the EU as a whole would not want to create a precedent that could lead to everyone else threatening to leave if they don't get the same thing.

That is the key piece of information. We, and not the EU, trigger Article 50 - when it suits us to do so

True but how much appetite would people honestly have for it going on for a long time. It negates all the urgency of the NHS/schools etc are all going to collapse through mass immigration if its going to get strung out for another 4+2 years.

The problem is that there's only so much you can do before you trigger Article 50. In particular, you can't have any formal talks or negotiations with the EU to decide on the shape of the post-Brexit agreement.

Now Britain could hope that EU countries agree to start informal negotiations before Article 50 is triggered. It would clearly be in the UK's favour, but why would EU countries agree to this? They'll be looking to get the best possible deal for themselves, so from their point of view they have every interest in using the formal process that is skewed in their favour and puts time pressure on Britain to conclude a deal.

That's the critical point. The other EU states aren't going to be rushing to do us a favour; quite the opposite. They'll want to show any other countries that might be thinking of leaving that it's a bad idea.

They'll also want to protect their domestic trade; making it more expensive to import cars from the UK is good for Germany's car industry as it makes their cars comparatively cheaper. So they won't be falling over themselves to give us everything me want - they have no incentive to.

I agree Chalalala and MrsBlackthorn - all I can see on the table is EFTA with free movement or no deal - default to WTO. Possibly with some legislature to protect those already in EU and UK.

It would be ironic for us to walk away from talks where we would end up paying more to the EU and also no voting powers.

True but how much appetite would people honestly have for it going on for a long time. It negates all the urgency of the NHS/schools etc are all going to collapse through mass immigration if its going to get strung out for another 4+2 years.

Call me an old cynic, but I think it's perfectly possible to string this out forever. Do you remember all the guff about a "British Bill of rights" that was going to be drafted within 6 months of a Conservative partly victory? It was in the manifesto, which makes it more binding than a referendum.

Once the government realised that all those pesky legal experts were right, and that drafting a British (or rather English and Welsh, because for legal and political reasons it can't include Scotland or NI) bill of rights that was substantially different from the existing Human Rights Act would be a legal and practical minefield, the ideal was quietly put on the backburner.

What might happen is that a leave vote and change of leadership would give rise to an "oh shit" moment once Boris and Gove realise they have to deliver, and they'll find a reason (probably sterling and/or a quarter of poor growth) to delay invoking article 50. In the meantime, educated Europeans will vote with their feet and some financial services institutions will relocate to Frankfurt and Dublin as a precautionary measure, leading to a fall in net immigration which will provide an excuse for not pulling the trigger.

Ugh sorry form typos and horribly convoluted sentences :-/

There's always the possibility that Cameron will do as he said he would, and trigger Article 50 within hours/days of the result, before his leadership is challenged. Would put Boris, Gove, etc in a right mess, but it'd be politically difficult to criticise Cameron for enacting the wishes of the people.

I'm trying to decide whether Cameron has enough moral backbone to not do that, and to prioritize Britain's interests over petty political revenge. I think he does, just about?..

There's always the possibility that Cameron will do as he said he would, and trigger Article 50 within hours/days of the result

I think it would take days, at least, because saying you are leaving and making a formal notification are different (and article 50 isn't invoked without formal notification). I presume it would at least require some diplomacy and some civil service/ legal ground work first. I don't really know, but my guess is that if the tory party were determined to replace Cameron then it could do so before a formal notification under article 50 was made. It only requires 15% of tory MPs to trigger a no confidence vote.

It would give me a certain masochistic pleasure, as a remainer, to watch brexit Tories hastily calling a leadership election to prevent article 50 being triggered. Is it possible that could happen?