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

@Catabogus

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.

At the moment the focus in Westminster/Whitehall is on the politics and emergency planning for No Deal - so there isn't much of a market for actual expertise. More broadly, we do engage quite a lot with civil servants/government - but it has to be said that the government is not operating as a unified whole or with any remotely coherent strategy, so they may listen but it's not clear what impact it has..

@EdwinH

What would the practical, real-life consequences be if the various criminal investigations that are ongoing against various players in the Leave camp arrive at a finding of criminal wrongdoing? Would that be sufficient to annul the referendum? And what, if anything, would it mean for Brexit itself if the verdicts are delivered after Brexit Day has passed and we've left the EU?

I'm far from an expert on this, but if charges of criminality are brought they'll be heard in court. However, there is no provision to annul the referendum even if evidence that cast doubt on the outcome were found (and I'm not convinced it has been yet). We do need to look at our laws governing referendums, and, more generally, dealing with the role of digital media

It would have been nice if the government had done as much work before the referendum to discover what would be the outcome of a Leave vote.

Back bench MPs can't negotiate with the EU. But if a majority in parliament votes for something it would be politically difficult if not impossible for the government to ignore this.

@Walkingdeadfangirl

Hello, If backbench MPs win a vote to hold a second referendum or to extend A50, can the government ignore that and by default just leave the EU on the 29th March? Or can backbench MPs legally bypass the government and negotiate directly with the EU?

Thank you for the clarification. There had been a lot of talk on social media about how such a finding might have meant the referendum result was void. Your answer debunks that. Appreciate it.

@squareofthehypotepotenuse

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?

One of the key reasons for our programme - www.ukandeu.ac.uk - is precisely to get expert evidence into the public domain. On separating fact from fiction, i highly recommend fullfact as well as BBC REality Check. I do think the mainstream media - most of all the BBC - do havea responsibiity to call out demonstrably false information. It's very frustrating to hear a politician who is saying something untrue on the Today programme and not have them challenged, even when teh BBC's own REality Check has often already set out the facts on the BBC website!

@lalalonglegs

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

That's very kind! We in fact did that during the 2016 referendum, including doing one of these events for Mumsnet! The problem was we didn't have the profile or reach last time and so not many people paid attention. IF we have another referendum, and I'm far from convinced we will, I hope that will be different!

@Doubletrouble99

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?

Thanks. The pros are it will give us more time to get ourselves ready either for a no deal Brexit or for a Brexit based on Theresa May's deal. If the PM's deal gets voted through in the Commons next week or soon after it still needs to be incorporated into UK law through an Act of Parliament, known as the WAB. This may take time.

The cons are it will leave those who voted for Brexit feeling betrayed. They were promised we will have left on 29 March 2019.

It is unlikely that any extension will go beyone end of June because the new European Palriament will sit then and there will not be any UK MEPs

@squareofthehypotepotenuse

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?

Great question! It can be frustrating, especially when people make accusations about us (accusing us of personal bias) rather than engaging with the research itself. There is no system here for legally fact checking claims, though I think the ONS said the 350 million claim was misleading. We live in an age where those who shout loudest tend to get heard.

@2beesornot2beesthatisthehoney

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

To be honest no one knows. No deal is the default, so if parliament doesn't agree to anything else, we fall out with no deal on 29 March. But there is a big majority of MPs against this outcome, so I suspect either they will eventually agree a deal, or a referendum, or a delay to Article 50 to allow them time to agree on one of those things.

Jonathon, following on from my question about no deal being inevitable and your thoughts that extension most likely. Up till now EU have said extension only likely if reason for it such as PV . Barnier confirmed as much yesterday. So is your reasoning for extension due to economic impact on EU?

@HollowTalk

It would have been nice if the government had done as much work before the referendum to discover what would be the outcome of a Leave vote.

I think we have learned much about the conducting of referenda. Other countries like Switzerland and Ireland which have referenda much ore frequently have a well establsihed structure in place so that the public is made well aware of both sides of the argument - and the implications of their decisions - before they come to vote.

@ChiaraRimini

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?

I think that our reputation as a relatively stable, pragmatic country has already been significantly adversely affected ,and No Deal would exacerbate that. Outside Europe, however, I suspect awareness of the GFA is rather low - it's probably the general impression that matters more.

Can I ask whether you feel positive about the future of this country? I have to say I really don't and if I were younger I'd be making plans to leave.

@Catabogus

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.

Thanks for this. The government has some very good people in the civil service but I think it is striking that some government departments are much more open to academics' input than they used to be.

@LeNil

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?

On the first point, it seems unlikely that you will be able to remain a councilor post-Brexit unless you take French nationality, although that will depend on teh details of French legislation post-Brexit. On the latter, I do not think there is any bar on having both French and British nationality, so I'd advise doing so - although obviously that doesn't deal with the wider issue about identity.

@prettybird

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

I'd say listen to WTO and customs officials who say that there will need to be checks, especially on animal products, in the event of no deal. The physical nature of NI border is very different to Zeebrugge, which means the dangers of people evading checks away from the border is much greater than at the big European ports.

Thank you all for coming in.
’Back bench MPs can't negotiate with the EU. But if a majority in parliament votes for something it would be politically difficult if not impossible for the government to ignore this.’

Given May’s MO appears to be ignoring facts and carrying on as if nothing has happened eg.being found in contempt of Parliament, biggest ever defeat combined with biggest ever rebellion, do any of you have complete confidence that things that should be politically difficult to ignore won’t actually be ignored and the clock continues to run down so May can attempt to muster more votes for her deal?

@borntobequiet

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?

That's a really good question! The Conservative party is changing in nature. Back in 2015 I remember John Redwood saying businesses that backed remain would be punished. Increasingly, if we go by 2017, the Tories are increasing their support among working class voters, so the social bases of party support might also be changing.

I think one of the reasons we don't hear more business leaders criticising the Tories for what they are doing is that the opposition is led by Corbyn and I've met many in the business world who think he is a greater danger to the economy than Brexit.

@LonelyandTiredandLow

Assuming USA (Trump) continues to show disdain for WTO and UN, do we not feel this may affect our trading if we have a No Deal Brexit and could this potentially see both countries dropping out of UN, seeing as our seat is now less influential than ever before?

Specifically on the WTO point, the WTO is in a bad place at the moment. Its important 'DSU' agreement on sorting out disputes is under siege. There will be no appeals heard after September because president Trump has blocked the appointment of new appellate judges.

I also think our seat on the Security Council is increasingly looking anachronistic.

@TheNumberfaker

I have recently met people who say that they are not at all worried about no-deal or that there will be a few years of hardship but then everything will be much better for the UK. What are the most significant consequences of no-deal in your opinion(s)?

"A few years of hardship" is hardly to be dismissed. My view - but it does depend crucially on political developments - is that we will experience serious disruption and a significant economic hit, but it wont' be a catastrophe - we won't starve, etc. But the damage will be very noticeable. We can expect price rises, falls in real wages, business closures, etc. Over the long term the economy will indeed adjust, but we will be permanently poorer under almost any plausible scenario compared to other scenarios (remain or softer Brexit). The longer term dconsequences are likely to be reduced foreign investment, decline in UK manufacturing, hit to some service sectors, etc.

@Catabogus

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.

I think the Government is listening and they're being given a pretty stark message by civil servants too. Have a look at the leaked border force memo that Faisal Islam revealed on Sky the other day. The problem is that there are more and more MPs who simply won't listen to evidence. On the radio this morning the head of Airbus in the UK said in the event of no deal they might pull out. After which we had a Tory Brexiter saying the airbus guy just doesn't understand aerospace!

If you could decide what happens now (given your last, incredibly depressing (though realistic) post, what would you want?

@Doubletrouble99

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?

Well, I think the Conservatives worry that an extension will annoy their voters, some 70% of whom are Brexiters. The Government also fears an angry reaction from the Brexiters on its own back benches. So part of the issue is political and a fear that extension is seen as betrayal or the thing of a wedge that ends with remain. It will give parliament more time to discuss, but parliament has had two years, so it's far from clear more time will help - we may just end up approaching the extended deadline with no agreement! And remember the EU have hinted that they will only allow an extension if there is a good reason. That might mean an election or a referendum, but it's far from clear the EU (who have to agree an extension unanimously between all member states) will be keen on an extension just so parliament has more time not to come to a decision!

@twofingerstoEverything

Following on from the question above, are there any benefits to a no deal?

If, like me, you like fish, we might see sharp price falls especially for types of seafood we currently catch but mostly export! the same might be true for some other agricultural products. Not so good for the fishermen or farmers though.

One frequently claimed benefit is that we wouldn't have to apy the £39bn "divorce bill". Leaving aside the legalities, if we didn't pay this would further poison relations with the EU - and remember that planes etc will keep flying between the UK and the EU, but only as long as the EU keeps a temporary exemption in place. Even after a No Deal, the UK will still have a very weak negotiating hand.