Brexit: where are we? What could happen next? Webchat with three experts on Tuesday 27 November at 1.30pm

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

We’re pleased to announce a webchat on Brexit, the ‘divorce’ agreement, and possible outcomes, with three guests from The UK in a Changing Europe on Tuesday 27 November at 1.30pm.

Professor Jonathan Portes is senior fellow at The UK in a Changing Europe and Professor of Economics and Public Policy in the Department of Political Economy at King's College London. Previously, he was principal research fellow of the National Institute of Economic & Social Research. Before that he was chief economist at the Cabinet Office, and previous to that chief economist at the Department of Work and Pensions.

Professor Catherine Barnard is senior fellow at The UK in a Changing Europe; Professor in European Union Law and Employment Law at the University of Cambridge; and senior tutor and fellow of Trinity College. Catherine specialises in EU law and employment law.

Professor Anand Menon is Director of The UK in a Changing Europe and Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs at Kings College London. He has held positions at Sciences Po, Columbia University and NYU. He has written on many aspects of contemporary Europe and is a frequent commentator on national and international media.

Professors Menon and Barnard joined us before the Brexit referendum in June 2016 - you can check out that webchat here if you fancy refreshing your memory/reliving the heady atmosphere.

Please do join the chat on Tuesday. If you can’t make it, please leave a question here in advance. Do bear in mind the webchat guidelines - one question each (follow-ups allowed if there’s time), and please be polite. Also following recent chats/guest posts we’ve updated our guidelines to let people know that, if one topic is overwhelmingly dominating a discussion with a guest, mods might request that people don't continue to post what's effectively the same question or point. Rest assured we will ALWAYS let guests know that it's an area of concern to multiple users and will encourage them to engage with those questions.

Thanks
MNHQ

@onalongsabbatical

purplelindyloo ECJ haven't made a decision today and are not expected to come to a decision for possibly weeks so not sure where you've got that from?

Thanks for this. The big ECJ case today is about whether the Article 50 notificationwhich triggered The whole process can be reversed and if so under what conditons. A judge, called the AG, will give an advisory opinion before Christmas; the whole Court will decide soon after that.

@LucyHarrold

I have 2 questions for the panel: 1) the PM frequently refers to 'ending free movement' as the key benefit of her Withdrawal Agreement. She never mentions it is a reciprocal right. Please would you explain what ending 'free movement' will mean for UK citizens? How will it affect UK citizens wishing to live, work, study or retire in the EU?; and 2) the PM's proposals for the UK's future deal with the EU leave our Services sector (80% of the economy) entirely out of the single market. She has never explained that choice, nor its impact on the sector both practical and economic- can you? Many thanks, Lucy (Solicitor)

1. It will mean that it will be much harder for UK citizens to work, live and retire in the EU - we'll be treated like citizens of other non-EU countries like the US. That doesn't meant it will be impossible, but it will be much harder, and people who do this will have far fewer rights. And different EU countries will have different rules. It's possible it may be easier for students if we can make a deal, but that's not clear yet.

Brexit is looking to cost between 100-140 BILLION pounds per year. The loss of tax revenue (approx. 30-40 BILLION) could destroy the NHS. Would taxes need be raised to compensate or would services be slashed?

@BlackeyedGruesome

A bit like testing testing one, two, three.

Lots of politicians are complaining about Theresa's deal and think they can do better. Is there a lack of understanding that there are 27 or so other countries out there who have to agree to a deal and also have their own wants and desires for the outcome? They seem to lack theory of mind that other people have an input and not just some faceless machine of the EU that will give us what we want.

Definitely! All other EU countries are democracies too, so they have their own domestic politics. We've seen that with M. Macron's comments about fishing, for example - from an economic perspective, fishing is not a very big deal (obviously it is if you're a fisherperson, or indeed a fish..) but for both UK and French politicians it is.

@lalalonglegs

Thanks for coming to chat to us. I had a quick scroll through the 2016 webchat and was shocked by how many of the questions that we were asking then still haven't been resolved.

What do you think are the best and the most contentious points within the WA?

Great question, virtually impossible to answer, because 'best' depends on who you are! I think it's a clever compromise that squares the circle of the PM's red lines and the EU's negotiating position to a large extent. For leavers, the fact we will still be under EU rules and in a customs arrangement mean that this is 'Brexit in name only.' For others, the lack of clear arrangements for services is problematic.

From reading through lots of journal articles and skimming over the EU Draft Agreement and outline of Future Trading Agreement, my reading is that it might be that we will only be able to do trade deals with other countries who are closely aligned with EU Customs Union or who already have existing agreements with EU as other countries would not want to align themselves with EU in order to trade with us. Do you agree or do you think we could do trade deals with any countries as Trump thinks not with US if we vote to accept May's deal?

Thanks. Most people think that in the event of a no deal Brexit by 29 March 2019, things will be very difficult in the short term. It is likely there will be massive tailbacks at Dover and this will slow up the process of getting food and medicine through. The Secretary of State for health has said there will be deaths. The question is whether, in the event of a non deal Brexit, the EU will in fact doa series of mini deals. At the moment, M. Brnier, the chief negotiators or the EU, says no.

@MyOtherProfile

I'm generally concerned about the state we will be left in if we leave with no deal., financially, medically etc. Do you think there is any chance at all of no Brexit?

Hi, Is it true under the current Withdrawal Agreement the UK would be bound by the EU's New State Aid procedures for 4 years AFTER the transition period?
If so, how do you think this will affect the UK and any governments wanting to grant state aid?

I get the impression that a lot of people believe that membership of the EU costs more money than it brings in.

Am I right in thinking that this whole talk of the UK being a „net contributor“ only means that the direct membership fees are more than any direct payments the EU makes for projects in the UK?

However by far the main financial benefit from the EU membership is all the income generated from frictionless trade, access to markets, less bureaucracy because of standardised rules etc.?

Quite apart from the individual benefits for all of us of cheaper travel, roaming...

Are there any good figures anywhere about how much this is worth?

Ideally, I would like to see a comparison of total costs vs total benefits in the three scenarios

1. Theresa May‘s deal
2. No deal
3. Full EU membership (no Brexit)

@frumpety

Who do you think will benefit the most and who will benefit the least in the UK, in the event of ;

1. The deal currently available

Or

1. No deal

I am struggling to see actual quantifiable benefits from either situation, except apparently if we accept one, the potential for the other to happen is minimised.

Thank you

Overall, both the deal currently available and No Deal will make the UK significantly poorer - but No Deal will be considerably worse, and there is also the scope for short-term disruption. The deal currently available will be much better for manufacturers than No Deal, because it keeps us in a customs union with the EU (although there will still be downsides). Paradoxically the big winners from the proposed deal might actually be Northern Ireland business - because they'll keep frictionless trade (more or less) with both the EU and the rest of the UK!

@Tiscold

What did you vote? Are these experts impartial or are they allowing their baises via ehat they voted for affect their judgement?

Hi. Under the terms of our funding we have to remain absolutely impartial. We simply report the results of the research done by academics. We are absolutely not able to express opinions on Brexit but merely explain and analyse. So, we produced a report today that forecast that the deal on the table will impact negatively on the British economy. What we did not and do not do is extrapolate from that to whether or not it is a good idea, as these things are, of course, about more than just economics.

This is a good question and one of the many raised by the People’s Vote. A lot of people were not able to vote last time, like EU nationals living in the UK and UK nationals who have lived abroad for more than 15 years. By definition these are the people most affected by Brexit and so would want a say this time. However, if the franchise was changed some would say this was done deliberately to affect the outcome. Your daughter will be able to vote this time round because she is 18.

@Landlockedboatmum

My daughter was 16 at the time of the last referendum would have voted remain if given the chance. Brexit is something that will have impacts on her for the rest of her life. She is now 18. Do you think it right that she should have a say now through a People's Vote?

@caringcarer

I saw an article in paper by David Trimble who said he believed Irish border was being used as a scapegoat by EU to ensure UK stayed in Customs Union. DUP also seem adamant that they would prefer leaving with WTO terms and some kind of border in Ireland better than deal May has negotiated. Why can't we leave on WTO terms which is how many countries trade and refuse to put up border and instead use the trusted trader and electronic scheme on Irish border? If EU chose to put up border then leave them to it as Trimble stated NI border and Brexit not as connected as EU would have us believe. I think people forget we sell less to EU than EU sells to us and we trade more with non EU countries than other EU countries do so we are less dependent on EU than many realise.

The simple reason is that it would mean a border in Ireland that both the UK and the EU have pledged to avoid. Under WTO rules there would have to be checks, as it would be a customs and regulatory border.

@YourOP

I get the impression that a lot of people believe that membership of the EU costs more money than it brings in.

Am I right in thinking that this whole talk of the UK being a „net contributor“ only means that the direct membership fees are more than any direct payments the EU makes for projects in the UK?

However by far the main financial benefit from the EU membership is all the income generated from frictionless trade, access to markets, less bureaucracy because of standardised rules etc.?

Quite apart from the individual benefits for all of us of cheaper travel, roaming...

Are there any good figures anywhere about how much this is worth?

Ideally, I would like to see a comparison of total costs vs total benefits in the three scenarios

1. Theresa May‘s deal
2. No deal
3. Full EU membership (no Brexit)

Yes! We've done just that in our report, published today!

ukandeu.ac.uk/new-research-shows-economic-and-fiscal-consequences-of-the-brexit-deal/

(but your summary above is quite accurate)

I don’t really understand how we can proceed on our course of leaving the EU without arrangements for our WTO membership (UK Schedule) in order. According to this article that is completely up in the air (www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/17232332.agenda-events-in-geneva-could-make-the-london-drama-pointless/?ref=fbshr). So why leave a trade area to negotiate a new one when we’re not even on the starting grid for the new trade deals?!

@MyNameIsArthur

Sorry, I don't think I will be able to join your live webchat tomorrow but will read the thread afterwards. My questions are:

With the UK outside the EU, is the EU more likely to gather it's pace towards federalism?

What economic threats does the EU face internally such as the Euro and externally such as globalisation?

How well is the EU attempting to adapt to the new world economic order?

1. I don't think so. The EU faces major problems and divisions over the eurozone, migration and liberal versus non liberal values (which is broadly an east-west split). Brexit won't make any of these easier to solve.
2. The eurozone is certainly not fixed, and economists still worry about the health of the Italian economy and particularly some Italian banks.
3. The EU is busy signing trade deals with a number of countries to make trade with them easier. And because it is a relatively large market it is somewhat cushioned from external forces to a greater extent than smaller economies (one reason why small states are so keen to be in)

@ARhythmlessMan

What difference do you think the average family, who don't have offspring studying for high earning vocations abroad or vacation regularly in Europe or indeed have partners earning vast amounts thanks to the EU old boys club, will experience post Brexit?

It depends very much on whether there is a deal or not. In the case of No Deal, we will all experience some disruption because of disruption to trade - so higher prices and perhaps shortages. The pound will probably also fall, which will make things more expensive, as it did after the vote itself. If there is a deal, then any impacts will be much slower to make themselves felt, but people in some sectors (eg car manufacturing, financial services, etc) may see impacts on wages and jobs.

Re; The Irish border question:

The simple reason is that it would mean a border in Ireland that both the UK and the EU have pledged to avoid. Under WTO rules there would have to be checks, as it would be a customs and regulatory border.

Despite the comments by David Trimble and others who believe that the Irish border was being used as a scapegoat by EU to ensure UK stayed in Customs Union – is it not the case that the GFA actually prevents the UK from leaving the EU (or a Customs Union) if this results in any hard border between the Roi and the UK/Northern Ireland?

Is it not the case that the only 2 options that allow the UK to leave the EU and at the same time fulfil the GFA obligations (which are embedded in an International Law) are:

• Northern Ireland leaves the UK and becomes part of the RoI or
• The RoI also leaves the EU at the same time as the UK does so.

@bellinisurge

Regardless of the merits of the deal (just for once!) how can we avoid No Deal if this deal doesn't get through either our Parliament or any of the other member states' parliaments.

An extremely good question! We know there is a majority in parliament against no deal, but on the other hand, no deal is the default outcome if nothing else is put in place before 29 March. It is inconceivable, if parliament passes a motion against no deal that the government can and will ignore this. However we don't know how precisely this would happen. It would require either acceptance of the deal, or or a different deal, or decision to hold another referendum or an election to try to resolve this

at the moment there are more than three possible outcomes and each one is almost equally plausible. The key question is what will happen in respect to the meaningful vote on 11 December in Westminster. At the moment, it looks like the government will lose that vote, although Theresa May is working hard to overcome the opposition to the vote. I f she does lose then the question is whether she resigns (unlikely), is subject to a leadership challenge, or calls for a general election or a second referendum. I think she might wait to see what happens to the pound and, if it sinks, call a second meaningful vote. It is not very likely that the EU will agree to renegotiate what is already a substantial Treaty.

@Hazardswan

What do you think are the top 3 most likely outcomes? For example do you feel that come the 30th of March the country will be in a no deal scenario, will the Gov be applying for an A50 extension for a People's Vote, will this Withdrawal Agreement pass or is your educated guess that there will be a General election? I have no idea why the latter would be helpful

And what is your preferred outcome?

Thanks to everyone agreeing to do the webchat and to MumsnetHQ for arranging it

@WhatdoImean

What would you assess the probability of the government successfully getting the proposed deal through the House of Commons? And if not, what are the most likely outcomes?

It is very hard to see it passing at the first time of asking. The government may bring it back, and at that point it is hard to know what parliament would do. If it fails, then we really arrive in uncharted territory. Some will argue we should leave with no deal, others that we need a second referendum. It is hard to see how this Prime Minister could survive such an outcome so a new PM would have to decide whether to try to negotiate a different deal. However, on the key issues that people seem to object to, such as the Irish backstop, it is very difficult to see the EU offering any concessions!

@Tiscold

What did you vote? Are these experts impartial or are they allowing their baises via ehat they voted for affect their judgement?

I did not support Remain or Leave during the campaign. Our job - and you are paying for us to do it, since we're funding indirectly by the taxpayer - is to use our professional expertise to give objective analysis of the issues. I don't tell anyone what they should think about Brexit but try to make sure they have the information they need to make up their minds.

How is a further referendum un-democratic? Surely by that token, the only referendum result that would be binding was the one in 1975 to continue membership of the EC? Surely the fact that there was a further referendum in 2016 means that there is an acknowledgment that perspectives can change over time and the last two years have given us plenty of food for thought to change our perspective?

@Havanananana

‘No Deal’ – i.e. leaving the EU with no agreement and no transition on 29th March – will result in damaging disruption. The food industry, supermarkets, water utilities and pharmaceutical companies fear that supplies would run out in a matter of days and shortages would last for months. Manufacturing would come to a halt as components and materials stop arriving and finished goods cannot be exported. There is a real risk of civil unrest.

If Parliament votes against the Withdrawal Agreement, and ‘No Deal’ would be catastrophic, does Parliament then have a legal and moral obligation to act in the best interests of the country – i.e. request that the UK be permitted to withdraw the Art 50 notification and remain in the EU ?

I find it very hard to see parliament doing that without putting the question to a referendum. And I'm not sure as things stand that there is a majority for this in parliament. However, if the deal is defeated, I think parliamentary majorities might start to shift quite fast

Why is it actually so difficult to go for a People's Vote? What does Theresa May have to lose? Why refer to the will of the British people if the will of the British people is now utterly disregarded? The public was deliberately misled. The most googled question the morning after the referendum was "what is the EU"? Please help me to make sense of this.