| HN Mirror

I think that the chances of the Brexit process collapsing just collapsed themselves. The only way to do that was to not trigger Article 50.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/29/first-eu-re...

atomwaffel 3375 days ago

Not quite:

> the UK will be able to revoke its notification of article 50 but this must be “subject to conditions set by all EU27 so they cannot be used as a procedural device or abused in an attempt to improve the actual terms of the United Kingdom’s membership”. [1]

So in short, remaining is less likely than ever but still possible.

True, but May has (repeatedly) threatened to go out 'without a deal' if she can't get terms she likes.

The UK has to somehow bluff its way into a negotiation position and I fail to see how all these statements and laws are compatible with each other.

jamiethompson 3375 days ago

Whilst you're perhaps correct, it's still not clear what triggering Article 50 actually means in practice. It's never been done and it's clear that the process was never really designed with a view to ever be invoked.

Well, once that's done as far as I understand it there is no way back, agreement or not, the clock ticks and after 2 years are up the separation is a fact. If people are hoping for a collapse of the Brexit after that point they are delusional, the only way this would reverse after that is by a new application, and I really don't see that ending up with the UK being in a better position after such a process than they have today. All kinds of exceptions were made to keep the UK in the EU, those are extremely unlikely to be granted a second time, especially not if the UK falls apart and Scotland ends up remaining.

The British prime minister is now making a strong play to pull Scotland out of the EU against their wishes, we'll likely see a race between the 'brexit' negotiators on the UK side and the Scottish 'remain' camp who will try to stay in without first exiting.

This is understandable from all points of view, the British government would rather like to negotiate from a slightly stronger position and the for the Scots because they were told they had to renegotiate their access to the single market if they seceded from the UK. Now that the British wish to exit that point has become moot which will most likely swing the referendum towards the Scots exiting the union. They probably feel quite cheated in Scotland.

patrickaljord 3375 days ago

> Well, once that's done as far as I understand it there is no way back

The UK has 2 year to retract as article 50 allows that. 2 years is a long period in UK politics during which a vote of no-confidence could happen, calling for new elections that could retract article 50. Even if the 2 years pass, the EU already said that they would fast track the UK back in if a future government wants to come back. This is not over.

rmc 3375 days ago

It's unclear if A50 can actually be revoked. There is a court case (starting in Ireland, with the goal of getting to the CJEU in Luxembourg ASAP) which is trying to answer that question.

If the CJEU says that A50 cannot be revoked, then the Houses of Parliament can do whatever they want, they're leaving.

They would be free to rejoin. Euro, schengen, and metricification are mandatory now though.

dragonwriter 3375 days ago

> They would be free to rejoin. Euro, schengen, and metricification are mandatory now though.

Well, in principle they could get unanimous consent on concessions again, they just don't come pre-baked.

jamiethompson 3374 days ago

It is unclear whether it can be revoked, yes. It is also unclear whether it cannot be revoked. It's simply unclear.

https://www.businessinsider.nl/uk-supreme-court-article-50-n...

I don't think you are correct, or at least, the UK supreme court thinks that you are not correct:

1) https://www.scribd.com/document/343381933/Draft-Resolution 2) https://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/c36c...

pknight 3375 days ago

You're misrepresenting the realities of A50 throughout this thread Jacques. The court case in question operated under the premise of the Government's position that A50 is irrevocable. Whether it is or not was not judged, it was just presumed to be irrevocable for the purpose of the case. That's a very important distinction.

A50 is revocable unless a court says it is not and even if questioned, the courts would more than likely rule that it can be revoked. The official position of the European Parliament is that is revocable (1), subject to some conditions that are set out (the UK can't use it as a negotiating tool essentially) and this is also the position of many important EU officials. Piet Eeckhout (EU law professor) recently remarked that it would be unconstitutional to deny the UK a right to revoke A50 should it wish to exercise that option.

It's also a mistake to judge A50 purely in legal terms, political reality is more important in this case. A point made abundantly clear by lawyers reporting on Brexit.

If there's a will on both sides to abandon Brexit, it will be done. For that to happen the political landscape and mood will have to reshape itself. Such a thing is not impossible given that confidence in the economy is trending down and people are becoming more pessimistic (2) and because the many complications that lie ahead will be coming to the foreground. If the choice before Parliament is between a disorderly exit without a deal in 2019 with very clear negative repercussions, it would be unthinkable if they do not intervene.

blowski 3375 days ago

It's possible they could extend negotiations. As long as the EU and UK parliaments both agree to do that, they can do whatever they like, as they can just change the law to support whatever they're trying to do.

Whether there will be enough public support to do that is another matter entirely. Perhaps there will be another general election or referendum which will muddy the waters.

If the last year has taught us anything, it's that the world is a very uncertain place right now, and all predictions are worthless.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/29/first-eu-re...

brango 3375 days ago

They'll only let us back in the club if they choose to from now on [1].

Basically, they've left the door open for us to vote in a pro-EU party in the next general election and abandon the whole thing. That's why they won't agree a trade deal in the next 2 years.

They're hoping, like me, that things will get sufficiently bad in the next 2 years the public gives a mandate to a pro-EU party, and the whole sorry mess can be averted, and then we can try Johnson, Farage and the other scumbag liars for treason.

cabalamat 3375 days ago

> They'll only let us back in the club if they choose to from now on

I think this is basically correct. I also think that if, before the 2 years are up, the UK changes its mind about Brexit, the EU would be very likely to allow its membership to continue.

patrickaljord 3375 days ago

> and then we can try Johnson, Farage and the other scumbag liars for treason.

I hope you're kidding here. Trying people who won the previous election for treason is the mark of the worst dictatorships. Please don't.

fnord123 3375 days ago

>and then we can try Johnson, Farage and the other scumbag liars for treason.

And/or a serious rethink about the value of a free press that is allowed to act as News Corp. (The Sun, The Times) and Daily Mail and General Trust (Daily Mail, Metro, and previously the Evening Standard) have.

pimmen 3375 days ago

But what that means in practice is another thing entirely. For example, the DPRK and the ROK are still at war with each other, but that just means that they stare down each other at a border. The UK could be officially outside of the EU but to the banks, universities and import-export companies EU cooperation is as much of a reality as ever.

Really powerful entities want to keep their shareholders happy by avoiding complicated regulations on international activities, and they have a lot of political influence. The people of London for example are mighty pissed.

CaptainZapp 3375 days ago

  The UK could be officially outside of the EU but to the banks, universities and import-export companies EU cooperation is as much of a reality as ever.

That's the wishful thinking so much projected by the brexiteers. And I believe they're very wrong.

While London may remain a financial hub it will lose its importance. Multinational banks and insurances are alredy preparing to move entire departments to the continent. Especially France is extremely hard nosed in not providing the UK financial industry with passporting rights.

Frankfurt and Luxembourg are also yapping happily about the prospects of new jobs and businesses. And London is about to lose the privilege to clear deals in Euros.

Import / export has a lot to lose too. managing supply chains, without manufacturing just can't function in times of lean production and just-in-time manufacturing, gets incredibly harder and more expensive.

Universities? If you believe that they will just shrug it off I'm afraid you're in for a huge surprise. English universities will lose EU research grants. But the worst is that they will lose on foreign talent. Real talented scientists will think hard if they want to move to England in the current xenophobic climate and seek out alternatives.

The only bargaining chip that England really has is the defense industry and a pretty strong, experienced army, which helps provide security for Europe. Else then that? Not much.

And BTW: Comparing the situation between the EU and England with that in Korea is, well, grasping for straws? in any case it's a really bad, if not ludicrous argument.

Despite the defiance showed by some English politicians and the tabloid press I think that in reality England is in for a world of self-inflicted hurt. And mostly those people that enthusiastically voted to leave.

awjr 3375 days ago

More interestingly cross border co-operation between engineering companies will become harder. For example a part for the BMW Mini crosses the channel 3 times before being fitted https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/03/brexit-uk-c...

> The only bargaining chip that England really has is the defense industry and a pretty strong, experienced army, which helps provide security for Europe. Else then that? Not much.

And that's under NATO right now, so the EU does not lose much in that respect.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. There is no such thing as 'out' but 'in', and no matter how pissed the people of London are their prime minister has just done something that is essentially irrevocable.

alphonsegaston 3375 days ago

I'm pretty sure a mass political movement could in fact stop it. But it would have to be every Remainer out on the streets shutting things down kind of scenario. Our political autonomy extends beyond the proscriptions of those who govern us, whose express purpose is to create illusionary limits about our courses of action. Ghandhi and the Civil Rights movement demonstrated this, we've just been convinced into forgetting.

Chances of such a thing happening are extremely slim, but you are right, if all the remainers would simply shut the UK down then it might work, but that would require the rest of the EU to over-rule the signing of Article 50 by the current UK prime minister and I doubt they would go along with that. It might be worth a try, but last week would have been a much better time.

> Well, once that's done as far as I understand it there is no way back

It seems that EU lawmaking bodies disagree with you: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-stop-ar...

https://www.businessinsider.nl/uk-supreme-court-article-50-n...

That's contrary to this (but more recent, in fact, it isn't law right now):

And I note that it requires unanimous agreement between all the other member states, which is a very rare thing. So a very thin maybe.

Same publication, today: http://uk.businessinsider.com/eu-brexit-resolution-article-5...

gutnor 3375 days ago

I also get the feeling that if the process fails during the negotiations, that's the absolute worst way. It will divide the population further and the EU will be the scapegoat again.

The UK has had 9 months to mend its divided population. Get the facts back as first class citizen in debates, firmly drive out the hate-fueled arguments out and draw a picture of how they wanted the UK to be, realistic picture, not the Leave campaign fantasy. Finally with that done, let the houses discuss where the EU helped or hindered and then vote to proceed or not.

That's not how it happens, dialog didn't happen, the UK is at the same stage of division today (or worse) as it was 9 months ago.

anigbrowl 3375 days ago

Oh nonsense. If enough people change their minds there will be another referendum or some crisis meetings. 'We can't stop it now,' is self-destructive rationalization.

That's the UK politicians position, not mine. They could have easily stopped last week. "brexit means brexit" and "no deal we leave anyway". Blustering tough talk but who it is supposed to impress I'm not sure about. The self-destructive element is on the UK side and the sooner they realize it the better.

anigbrowl 3375 days ago

Agreed. Sorry for being snarky, I'm just frustrated by the stupidity of the whole thing.

> I'm just frustrated by the stupidity of the whole thing.

Join the club. I did not believe that May would be silly enough to push this through as far as she has, it's like watching someone aim a gun at their feet and pulling the trigger in slow motion.

She won't be remembered kindly.

The UK spent decades pulling itself out of the slump it was in in the mid 80's of the last century, now it is rushing as fast as it can to repeat the experience.

The only silver lining I can see here is that if once brexit is a fact the rejoining could happen rapidly after the Scots break away from the union and England and Wales (and possibly Northern Ireland) realize that it's not working out. But say goodbye to the pound and any exceptions the UK has right now in that case.

It's an own goal if there ever was one.

And no worries about being snarky, it's totally understandable, fortunately I'm on this side of the channel where the impact will be spread out. If I had my eggs in the UK basket I would be a lot less agreeable than merely snarky.

markatkinson 3375 days ago

The paragraph after the heading 'Why This Matters' sort of addresses the fact that it is anecdotal and how it might still have significance.

Personally I find the article does read a bit like scaremongering propaganda.

If you want data not anecdotes, then it's early days but here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/18/nhs-eu-nurse...

davidf18 3375 days ago

Don't you think that its strange that the UK can't train enough nurses (sisters) and has to import nurses from poorer countries?

I guess the nationwide (near) monopoly on healthcare, the National Health Service (NHS) will have to start paying market prices for nurses as well as start more training programs instead of relying on importing cheaper labor.

To say that there aren't enough Brits to do the nursing in a population of 60 million is ridiculous.

The elites in Britain (and perhaps the entire wealthier countries of the EU) basically didn't seem to care (and perhaps encouraged) the importation of labor to drive down market prices of labor both for untrained as well as trained labor. In the case of healthcare, it is simply a means for the government to pay less for healthcare than they would if there were a competitive market instead of their monopoly.

It wasn't absolutely necessary to have the free flow of labor as part of the EU trade agreement. For example, NAFTA between US, Canada, and Mexico does not allow for the free flow of labor, only the free flow of good. I can't think of any trade agreements that the US has with other countries that allows for the free flow of labor. The free flow of labor benefits elites (think professional hiring nannies, government running health services, companies running factories, firms running high tech needing software developers) to help depress wages. Now the elites of Britain will have to start paying market rates for their labor.

> The elites in Britain basically didn't seem to care (and perhaps encouraged) the importation of labor to drive down market prices of labor both for untrained as well as trained labor

And you have hit on a basic truth there. A fair part of the vote to leave was because of economic hardship. A fair part of that is because of the perception of "people coming over here and working for less". But every employee has an employer. Government and business can do a lot to set industrial policy, starting with funding for education (for doctors, nurses etc), and minimum wage levels (for field & factory workers).

Emphasis on "can". They didn't.

andrewla 3375 days ago

Thanks for that link, in between all the rhetoric it's hard to get a clear signal. Do you happen to have any idea where that data comes from? It seems a little suspicious only because the dates chosen for comparisons seems a little cherry-picked, so it's hard to tell if the changes are routine or exceptional.

> Only 96 nurses joined the NHS from other European nations in December 2016 – a drop from 1,304 in July, the month after the referendum.

Comparing December to July? Maybe it's semi-annual data? What's the normal level of variance?

> 2,700 EU nurses left the health service in 2016, compared to 1,600 EU nurses in 2014 – a 68% increase.

Comparing 2016 to 2014? What happened to 2015, or 2013?

The article notes that this is from "freedom of information responses compiled by the Liberal Democrats from 80 of the 136 NHS acute trusts in England", but I can't seem to find a direct source; some things talk about the "Centre for Workforce Intelligence", but I can't get anything specific from there, and other things reference the "Nursing and Midwifery Council", which appears to be a voluntary registration system, but as far as I can tell does not generally publish statistics.

dev_head_up 3375 days ago

And how many were hired in the previous December? When it comes to The Guardian, I find that numbers can be very "flexible" when the narrative demands it.

This will become clear over time. All too clear, I fear.

woodandsteel 3374 days ago

Agreed, we need data, not just anecdotes.

That said, I imagine a lot of skilled workers are going to reason differently than you and leave.

ncr100 3375 days ago

What's the likelihood it will collapse? How could that happen?