> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
There has been a lot of fuss about those concessions in the past, I really wonder to what extent the poorer EU countries that had no say in this when those concessions were given would be willing to give the UK something they themselves had to give up to join. That might not go over well and there are a lot of those countries now. That's a dangerous game of roulette.
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.
Time will tell. The situation in the UK has worsened rather than improved over the past 9 months, if you feel that the 'realities' of article 50 are that you can submit and withdraw it willy-nilly than that goes against what the rest of EU media and politicians are saying. There are some new developments but those are fairly tenuous at this stage, maybe they will solidify in a way that would give the UK an 'out' but for now it looks like the UK will in fact use such an out to bolster their currently non-existing negotiation position (and I don't blame them).
The UK is a very divided place, as much as I don't like brexit (I think it is an exceptionally stupid move) I don't see the UK healing itself in time for this to be averted and the unanimous condition attached to any kind of revocation of Article 50 leaves very little room for hope.
May is on the record as saying that if there is no 'good deal' then there will be 'no deal', which is absolutely terrible for the UK, it's a game of continental chicken which will have only losers.
If the UK attempts to withdraw before negotations start then I give that some chance but if they first try to go through two years of negotiations and then attempt to withdraw as the deadline looms chances are very slim that they would be allowed to remain without serious concessions.
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.
Well, that may be how the UK sees it but I can pretty much guarantee that that is not how the rest of the EU will see things. The automatic end to the negotiations and finalization after two years is currently the law, it would probably be best to go on the assumption that that's exactly how it will play out. There is some sense on the UK side that the UK will come out of the negotiations in a better position than what they have right now in the EU, but the European side is adamant that no matter what the UK will not come out of this better than when they were a part of the EU, and this makes good sense (otherwise, why would any nation remain part of the bloc).
Also, the UK has just handed the EU all their strong cards in the negotiations, and if the Scots exit the union that position will get weaker still.
Keep in mind that the exceptional situation the UK has (had?) in the EU was always an annoyance to other member states but was tolerated in order to keep the UK in the EU. If the UK falls apart and Scotland re-joins (or even remains) then the UK negotiation position with respect to those exceptions has evaporated, something that would definitely be appreciated in other EU countries.
Other general elections of referenda will not muddy the waters from an EU perspective, the deed is done, any regret will now take the form of a re-application, which will likely include the UK giving up their own currency, becoming a part of the Schengen area and getting rid of all the exceptions that were made for the UK.
This was a dumb move if there ever was one, such major decisions should require a supermajority, not a simple majority and May did a huge dis-service to the UK just now. But by the time the chickens come home to roost she'll be enjoying her pension sitting under banner reading 'I gave the people of England what they asked for, not what they needed'.
> As long as the EU and UK parliaments both agree to do that
Under Article 50(3), extensions can only be granted by unanimity in the Council. The EP and Council both need to agree to a final agreement, but the EP doesn't seem to be involved in extensions at all.
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.
> 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.
>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.
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.
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.
Was anyone else reminded of John Harvey-Jones versus Morgan, where he bawled them out for pushing a car chassis up and down a hill several times as part of their production line?
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/29/first-eu-re...