Webchat with three experts on Brexit and the EU, on Thursday 24 January 11.30am

[BojanaMumsnet]

Hello

Following on from the webchat on Brexit and beyond with Anna Soubry on Tuesday, we’re pleased to announce a webchat on Brexit and the EU, with three guests from The UK in a Changing Europe on Thursday 24 January at 11.30am.

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 Barnard will be doing the webchat remotely, and will have to leave early, at 12pm.

Professor Anand Menon is Director of The UK in a Changing Europe and Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs at King’s 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 and you may have seen him on Question Time last week.

Professors Menon, Barnard and Portes joined us before for a webchat on the ‘divorce agreement’ and possible outcomes in November last year - you can check out that webchat here if you fancy refreshing your memory.

And finally - we are currently trying to line up a pro-Brexit webchat guest as well.

Please do join the chat on Thursday. 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

There’s nothing like an impartial debate is there?

Why are you only looking for one Brexiteer? Why not three?

What is the best response to people like Peter Bone who blithely says that he has visited Zeebrugge and the customs area is 40km from the docks and that therefore means that there doesn't need to be a problem in NI?

Apart from shouting at the TV

Hello

Thanks for joining us again. I'd like to ask, if there is a second referendum, what you think the question on the ballot paper should be (should Remain be included? No Deal?)? Anand, after your no-nonsense appearance on Question Time last week, would you be prepared to offer your services as some sort of moderator to challenge the inevitable factual inaccuracies during the rival campaigns?

lala

I'm quite sure that three professors - whichever way they voted - are capable of looking objectively at all the arguments and both sides of the debate. It's what academics do. Maybe silverysurfer and freshfreesias have got some ideas about who could represent their side. It would be interesting to measure their contributions against the three panel members above. I'd love to hear some objective, intellectual arguments in support of Brexit given that all our futures are going to be affected by this.

I find it interesting that on programmes like Question Time the only people - apart from politicians - that argue for leave are people like Isabel Oakeshott and Louise Mensch who are very good at spouting opinions and not so good at providing any hard evidence to support their views, or of bringing any kind of objectivity to the debate. What they can do is trot out slogans. I watched Anand Menon on QT a couple of weeks ago and he seemed more than capable of being impartial.

Following on from the question of what the legal consequences to the U.K. of breaking the GFA may be, (in the event of no deal/hard Brexit) what do you see as the wider consequences for the U.K. of this in the international community?

Given a no deal there seems a possibility as indicated by the EU that to avoid a hard border in Ireland there could be a border between Ireland and the rest of the EU. This implicitly takes Ireland out of the 4 freedoms of the single market against their will. What are the implications of this?

Thank you for coming on MN again.

What would need to happen now for Article 50 to be either postponed or rescinded? Are either of these options viable legally and within current time constraints?

A cheeky second question:

If A50 is extended, how do you see that playing out with the European Parliamentary elections? The EU has said that the UK would either have to leave or have elected MEPs by July but is there any possibility for extending longer than three months, running the elections as scheduled in May and then finding some mechanism to get rid of the UK delegation if we then decide to leave in (say) the autumn or next year?

Hi this is a follw up to my question last year

The WA did not go through there will be a second vote on it as predicted The idea of extending Article 50 is being banded around, the People's Vote is still around also, no dealers arent giving up and we can Revoke. And as always a GE is an option.

Out of all the available options (sure I missed some there) what are the 3 most likely?

And

What are the 3 least likely?

Hi,
What do you make of the report in the Business Insider about the likely effect of Brexit on food retail.
https://amp.businessinsider.com/brexit-uk-food-companies-increasingly-scared-about-no-deal-theresa-may-2019-1?twitterr_impression=true

Thanks

Can I ask how realistic you think it is to have a second referendum? How long do you think it would take to organize, what questions would be on the ballot paper and where would it leave us afterwards?

Thank you for answering questions.

As there seems to be some dissatisfaction from MN Leavers about the unfairness of not having pro-Brexit 'experts' I thought I would redress the balance for them.

Minford is a pro-Brexit economist who is comfortable that Brexit will "mostly eliminate manufacturing".

Bootle has just given a speech saying he is “fed up” with businesses talking about their supply chains as if preserving their businesses were the most important thing in the Brexit negotiations.

What is your view?

Hello and thank you for taking qs.

Further to NumberFaker's important question below, in the event of a no-deal, what would a "few years of hardship" look like in reality? Are we looking at growth foregone ie no one notices or are we talking job losses, reduced wages, real economic pain?

[Asking as an ardent Remainer but I think people on both sides of the argument need to have a better idea of the realities of the situation.]

My cheeky second question is can you discuss the pros and cons of extending A50.
Most people suggesting it think it will give parliament more time to discuss our leaving, how will that help? without a near deadline what will make them come to a decision?

A question:

Assuming it is a given that the effects of a no-deal Brexit will be highly negative on the economy, what could the UK do to replace the lost business (e.g. manufacturing, aerospace, ...) and how long will this take to materialise?

I can't be here for the Webchat itself, so I'm going to ask a cheeky 2nd question.

If A50 is extended (and I know that is still an "if" and would have to be asked for by the UK and agreed by the E27), I presume that would mean that the money laundering/tax evasion regulations would come into effect in the UK from the end of March.

How quickly is the impact of new regulations like that actually felt and how likely is it that any prosecutions would follow, if people or organisations were in breach? Or would transgressions in the UK be ignored as the UK is on the way out the door?

I know that that is cluster of questions but it is really just one about the impact of the new regulations being implemented within the UK if A50 is extended.

I’m a British National, married to a French national we have two dual nationality children and live in France.

I’m an elected town councilor in France. I asked DExEU what consequences leaving the EU would have on my position. They were unable to answer. Do any of you know, can I stand for re-election in 2020? Should I take French nationality?

I no longer feel completely British, but neither do I feel completely French. What I do feel and identify as is European. What action can I take against a government who is ripping away my identity?

Thank you all for giving up your time for this Webchat.

Jacob Rees Mogg is calling for parliament to be prorogued to block the Cooper Boles amendment. If this happened the WA agreement could not be passed and No Deal would happen automatically (at least, that is my understanding). Taking into account the parliamentary code states Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. and all assessments, including those of the government show how damaging No Deal would be, is there any legal recourse against a government that allowed this to happen, either through dissolving parliament or through inaction. In your opinion could members of the executive be prosecuted and what body or individual could do this?

I’d be interested to know whether you think the government (or indeed, the opposition) is actually taking advice from experts like the three of you, when planning how to deal with/mitigate the effects of Brexit? Or is it difficult for academics to influence current Brexit policy?

Thank you.

My question is simple . Whether we like it or not we seem to be heading for no deal do you agree?

Question:
The Conservative party has always claimed to be the party that supports business, and big business in particular has always supported the Conservative party. How on earth is business letting a Conservative Government continue to pursue a course that is bound to impact business adversely, if not catastrophically, driven largely by the extreme right wing of the party? In what way could business put pressure on the government to desist from this course?

Thank you all for your time on this Webchat today.

My question is regarding “experts”:

It must be frustrating to find your expert knowledge dismissed as mere opinion, or accused of bias. How can we separate fact from fiction? Whose responsibility do you feel it is to monitor/moderate discussion in the public arena? If our MPs are “honourable” - can they be legally responsible for assertions that they know to be untrue?

Thank you for your time today.

How much are our media and governments in the past forty years to blame for the negative perception that the UK has had of the EU?

The UK is split between two major parties. It is split in a totally different way over brexit. We have missed the Autumn deadlines of sorting the WA spectacularly. Negotiation and compromise seems to have no place in UK politics.

Does our whole electoral / parliamentary system need reform?

Get rid of FPTP, bring in a PR system. Move the chamber out of London, possibly to Stoke. Rebuild it in the round, with proper facilities (including female toilets) and well equipped offices for everyone.

“Why are you only looking for one Brexiteer? Why not three?”

They’re having enough trouble getting just the one to agree to it!