The consequence thread (Brexit)

[Radan]

What prevents it is the EU as we are still bound by their laws until we have actually left and that may take 3 years or more yet so she cant promise anything. To change any of it we still need their approval and that may or may not happen even in the Brexit negotiations.

 

Agreed. But I'm pretty sure we can say right off the bat, even before Article 50 is enacted, 'look, no-one is being chucked out. We don't enforce policy retrospectively and hope you match this.'

 

We don't need to hold that card close to our chests. These are people with jobs, family, mortgages etc here. Not pawns.

 

Removed the Vienna bit. I was thinking of something else entirely. My bad.

[Justin Smith]

I think it goes something like this. 52% of folk voted for Brexit. Of the rest most accepted the result and got on with life.

The sun came out the next morning and folk went to work and went to the pub. The economy has now settled down and more folk have come to terms with events.

The rest seem to be mouthing off and predicting Armagedon. I've not seen much of it myself.

 

There will be an election in 4 years, by which time we will be pretty much extracted from Europe, but you will get the chance to vote against pretty much any party that you feel might not have promoted your viewpoint

 

I`m absolutely certain that if the vote had gone 52/48 in favour of staying the Leave lobby would be wanting another referendum within a few years at most. In fact Farage said as much when he (wrongly) thought they might lose. Funny, is it not, how, when they actually narrowly win, it`s all different isn`t it ?

[tzijlstra]

But the private pension industry was already in crisis and this was happening well before the referendum. In March this year there was predicted to be an 800 billion black hole shortfall, which incidentally had almost doubled over the past decade. Granted the Brexit results will add to that but it was already in a very tenuous position so this is hardly a consequence of Brexit.

 

You're correct, it already was a large issue, the nation is running on credit, much like the Lannisters of Casterly Rock I suppose. But it is exacerbated by the gilt and GBP dropping through the floor, and the now expected, and earlier largely unanticipated, cut in interest rates by the BoE.

 

When you build a house on quicksand, make sure you manage the water. (newly invented Dutch colloquialism)

 

Might it be helpful for her to guarantee the rights of any EU citizen who arrived legally (And don't commit crimes) to stay after any Brexit?

 

Surely that issue will play a role in negotiations of BREXIT and it would not be prudent to prematurely offer such an unilateral guarantee.

 

Mhmm. I think it would be a sign of good faith to do as Brian says. No-one is getting turfed out and we expect this reciprocated.

 

Is it even possible? Doesn't the Vienna Convention or something forbid it?

 

To your point Brian:

 

Gamston is right, as is Radan. There is a lot of symbolism involved with doing this, but very little can factually change. I have looked up rights etc. (due to my own position) and it appears highly unlikely that the UK can do anything other than simply guaranteeing my rights and that of other EEA nationals in the country in the first place. Telling people that have arrived here, have legal residency and than taking it away is an excellent way to upset not only a large part of your own population, but also their friends and family and, perhaps even more importantly, nations that you consider friendly. It would no doubt result in huge repercussions with the UN. I am trying to think of examples in the past where a nation evicted a large number of 'foreigners' and the only examples I can think of as possibilities are not a list Britain would want to equate itself with. Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Iran...

 

But the other problem with this is that it creates a 'gold standard' without precedence, again, as far as I can work out. Because what it effectively would do is grant all EEA nationals in the UK a sort of second class citizenship, or indeed full citizenship. I can't really see it go any further than political words without legal foundation.

[Radan]

I`m absolutely certain that if the vote had gone 52/48 in favour of staying the Leave lobby would be wanting another referendum within a few years at most. In fact Farage said as much when he (wrongly) thought they might lose. Funny, is it not, how, when they actually narrowly win, it`s all different isn`t it ?

 

You quote Foxy Lady saying we will be out by 2020.

 

Today Philip Hammond said it will take 6 years!

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/12/no-brexit-until-2022-philip-hammond-warns-eu-exit-could-take-at/

[unbeliever]

Whilst an article 50 orderly exit had advantages, we don't actually have to do it.

 

EU law does not in general have the status of international law.

That means that the vast majority of EU law is only valid in the UK as a result of the 1972 European Communities Act.

Repeal that one law and as far as UK and international courts are concerned, the EU loses 99.9% of its authority over the UK.

We could also first transpose all existing EU law into UK law. Then the repeal of the 1972 act has zero impact on domestic UK law until and unless we decide it should be changed.

[Radan]

Whilst an article 50 orderly exit had advantages, we don't actually have to do it.

 

EU law does not in general have the status of international law.

That means that the vast majority of EU law is only valid in the UK as a result of the 1972 European Communities Act.

Repeal that one law and as far as UK and international courts are concerned, the EU loses 99.9% of its authority over the UK.

We could also first transpose all existing EU law into UK law. Then the repeal of the 1972 act has zero impact on domestic UK law until and unless we decide it should be changed.

 

Wouldn't repealing that require a Commons vote? Not sure why you think your approach is better. Can you elaborate?

[unbeliever]

Wouldn't repealing that require a Commons vote?

 

Sure. But the government can organise this without too much difficulty.

[I1L2T3]

You quote Foxy Lady saying we will be out by 2020.

 

Today Philip Hammond said it will take 6 years!

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/12/no-brexit-until-2022-philip-hammond-warns-eu-exit-could-take-at/

 

6 years is an underestimate for the total process IMO

 

Trade negotiations, agreement and then transition into those agreements will take much longer.

 

It has to be remembered that our current trade status is based on not only free trade with the single market but also approx. 50 trade deals between the EU and other countries.

 

To get to day one (as we are now) all 50 trade deals will have to be re-cut and we can't necessarily expect like for like. UK involvement will have been key in those trade talks and we will have blocked elements that didn't suit us, and had the collective power of 10, 15, 20, 25, 27 countries behind us (depending on when the deal was signed) to help us resist the bits we didn't want.

 

So 6 years for the exit plus trade negotiations after that plus transition periods. Maybe 20 years total. Quite a lot of us on this forum will be dead by then.

 

So, a favour to ask of the Brexecutioners. Can I borrow your crystal ball please? You said it would all be ok and I just want to see for myself.

[unbeliever]

I'm wholly unconvinced that this will be a very long process. Somebody from the government had to stand up and warn us of that possibility.

The default position in a conventional trade negotiation is WTO. This negotiation is different as the default position is more likely the current position. We're not starting from zero and figuring out how close we want to get to 1. We're starting from 1 and sitting down together saying: Are we really going to move back toward zero?

[Radan]

6 years is an underestimate for the total process IMO

 

Trade negotiations, agreement and then transition into those agreements will take much longer.

 

It has to be remembered that our current trade status is based on not only free trade with the single market but also approx. 50 trade deals between the EU and other countries.

 

To get to day one (as we are now) all 50 trade deals will have to be re-cut and we can't necessarily expect like for like. UK involvement will have been key in those trade talks and we will have blocked elements that didn't suit us, and had the collective power of 10, 15, 20, 25, 27 countries behind us (depending on when the deal was signed) to help us resist the bits we didn't want.

 

So 6 years for the exit plus trade negotiations after that plus transition periods. Maybe 20 years total. Quite a lot of us on this forum will be dead by then.

 

So, a favour to ask of the Brexecutioners. Can I borrow your crystal ball please? You said it would all be ok and I just want to see for myself.

 

No, he's saying it won't take 2 years to Brexit, it will take at least 4, maybe 6.

 

I agree, other stuff will take longer.