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

Thanks Prof Portes, I also never thought I would agree with Trump but if we can't trade with other countries who are not aligned with EU then our future looks very bleak as I thought the whole idea of Brexit was being free to do trade deals with rest of world and not being trapped only being able to do trade deals with or through EU as as we currently are. So would the only way to avoid this would be to A) Renegotiate out of Customs Union or B) walk away with no deal?

How can citizens protect insulate themselves from any difficult transition if we experience a hard Brexit (no-deal). Is there anything that the ordinary family can do now?

@Quietrebel

If A50 was revoked before March 29th (assuming it can and that we end up in such a situation) would the UK remain under the exact same terms it currently enjoys?

Yes, assuming that we can revoke unilaterally and the other member states don't have to approve (and therefore don't have the right to impose conditions). But the renegotiation that David Cameron carried out has now died, so we would be staying under the same terms as before, but worse terms (if you were concerned about the issues Cameron was) than those on offer in the referendum. If you see what I mean!

@2beesornot2beesthatisthehoney

Is it true that the WA whilst none in Parliament seems to like it does in reality could kick things down the road a couple of years for the same arguments to be repeated again. Ie not that really precise?

Absolutely. The WA is not really about the future at all. That will be resolved in the negotiation on the future agreement and negotiations on that won't start properly until after we've left.

@user1471448556

Given that the results were so close and that the referendum was non-binding, why has the current government not sought a compromise position - i.e. Norway, whereby we leave the EU, but we retain frictionless trade and we retain our own FOM?

Admittedly, in essence this would have been pretty pointless BUT it would not have been so damaging to the economy and the divisions amongst the population would have been dampened. We could have all 'got on with it' and moved on ... and the government could turn their attention to pressing issues, such as the NHS, school funding, Universal Credit, food banks, homelessness, climate change, etc.

Some Leave campaigners did support this before the referendum, and some politicians from all parties do support this now. This option was effectively ruled out by the PM in October 2016, but if her deal fails it may come back on the agenda

If an argument not to hold a People's Vote is a fear of causing a rift and conflict in the nation, what can government do about the divide that evidently already exists? Is this a question of not wanting to provoke the group more likely to react violently (i.e. leavers)? How can the country be reunited? Can it?

If we can revoke Atricle 50 unilaterally and Parliament vote down Theresa May’s deal, isn’t there a compelling argument for halting Brexit?

Why does it seem the PM has gone back on every red line she listed?

Question for Prof Barnard.

We hear a lot abouth the £39 billion. There seems to be debate over whether we legally have to pay this in divorce agreement. EU says yes but House of Lords says no. Also saw somewhere that EU legal team may not agree with EU negotiator stance. I accept we have some moral obligation but that aside legally who is correct, and how is this sum calculated? If we left with no deal how much would we legally owe to the EU?

@Talkinpeece

Do you think that Brexit will actually solve any of the UK's Socioeconomic issues that led to the Leave vote?

• housing ; both social and private
• zero hours contracts / low pay / Universal credit
• austerity impacting on health, education and local services

If so how?

That is ultimately up to the Government in power. If they chose to devote resources to, say, solving the housing crisis, they could do a lot. But, there will be less money available. That's not to say lots could not be accomplished, but difficult choices would have to be made. That being said, there are some people who argue that these things would not even be on our radar now were it not for the referendum.

Thanks for all your very well-informed questions! Hope I haven't depressed you too much. Hope to see you again. Best, Jonathan

So they could vote down this deal and then be steamrolled towards a No Deal, even though no one wants it?! Does anyone know what they’re doing? What a farce. All the more reason to try to revoke article 50.

Is it true that had the 2016 referendum been legally binding, it would have already been declared null and void, due to the confirmed overspending by the leave campaign?

If so, is it not morally dubious to continue with Brexit just because David Cameron promised he would enact the results ... without any legal compulsion to do so.

Thank you Profs and thank you Mumsnet!

@Tiscold

Well no I'm not going to disregard them because they may have voted differently.

However i want to know how the people who are telling me if brexitis good or bad have voted. Because yes they will be biased, everyone is biased so will let their personal opinions affect their judgement.

If i hate eggs you would like to know before i publish an article on how bad eggs are for you? Or if i own shares in fossil fuel wouldn't you want to know before i write about how electric cars are not right and can't work.

I hate broccoli but would look at the evidence before claiming that they had negative health implications.

@PigletJohn

We have a negotiated deal, that we can accept or not accept.

Is it realistic to think that some other deal might appear before we leave?

The rather rubbish answer is it depends. I think if we had a new PM, the EU might extend Article 50 and negotiate, as long as they thought the new PM had something realistic in mind. I can't see the current PM getting much beyond cosmetic changes - if that - if she went back to them now.

Thanks Mumsnet for facilitating debate. Very informative.

@caringcarer

Question for Prof Barnard.

We hear a lot abouth the £39 billion. There seems to be debate over whether we legally have to pay this in divorce agreement. EU says yes but House of Lords says no. Also saw somewhere that EU legal team may not agree with EU negotiator stance. I accept we have some moral obligation but that aside legally who is correct, and how is this sum calculated? If we left with no deal how much would we legally owe to the EU?

We're sorry to say Professor Barnard's internet connection has cut out - the perils of remote working - we'll see if we can follow up to get an answer for you

@caringcarer

Question for Prof Barnard.

We hear a lot abouth the £39 billion. There seems to be debate over whether we legally have to pay this in divorce agreement. EU says yes but House of Lords says no. Also saw somewhere that EU legal team may not agree with EU negotiator stance. I accept we have some moral obligation but that aside legally who is correct, and how is this sum calculated? If we left with no deal how much would we legally owe to the EU?

There is a difference in legal opitnion. But the point that it is crucial to make is that the payment is one for outstanding liabilities, not towards a future trade deal, so the EU would try to litigate to get it in the event we refused to pay. What we don't know is what possible court might hear the litigation! We need Catherine Barnard back for that!!

Signing off now. thanks so much for all your brilliant questions. Hope some of the answers helped, at least!

Anand

Thanks very much to our guests and to you for all your questions

Many thanks Prof Anand Menon, it makes perfect sense although even more gutting to realise that we could have had it even better than we do today but let that go to waste so spectacularly! Still, to know revoking A50 would mean keeping the status quo as of today (with the caveats you mention) is very reassuring.

Nice to be ignored several times while 'big name' posters get answered several times

That was so informative but I'm INCREDIBLY depressed about this.

A reminder here for all you 3 professors and the rest of the nation:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union

The above were the exact wordings of the 2016 Referendum and the great British public had given their answer To Leave the European Union.

So why then are you here to paddle all this nonsense talk about Deal, No Deal, People's Vote, Second Referendum, Backstop, yada, yada, yada and more yada? And please tell me, all you learned professors, can you think of one example on this earth and indeed anywhere in the universe, of (say) two people having a divorce but continue to share the same bed?