When I leave an organization, I usually walk away and don’t look back. Sometimes I’ll tell them that I am leaving, return items belonging to them, and/or will no longer pay dues, etc.
Why does May need an exit plan? Why can’t Britain notify the EU that UK will no longer honor any EU commitments/rules? Many in Parliament have rejected her exit plans so far. Do those who reject the exit plan expect the EU to continue to honor their side while UK no longer honors theirs?
It can, but that would mean that UK would be independent from a multinational organization that has its own constitution, “commissars” and common policies that don’t always go in favor of all members…and we obviously can’t have that happen now can we? Instead, the referendum results will be essentially ignored and this status quo will last until it is decided that there will be no brexit.
Perhaps, yes, some of them do expect that. But the UK has been grudgingly forced to honor its commitments. The most recent extension to the Brexit process, for example, requires the UK to do things like hold elections to the European Parliament if it is to remain in the EU into the term of the next Parliament.
Are you part of any organizations that pay large parts of your salary? And at the same time are one of the main places you buy stuff? Will any organization you are part of take some of your furniture if you leave? Do you have a property dispute at your summer cottage that has only been resolved in part by your membership in the organization, and no idea how to broker an alternative deal that doesn’t lead to bloodshed?
Those who reject the exit plan either hope the Leavers will give up, hope a magical better deal will materialize or are too stupid/cynical to see the problems of a no-deal brexit.
The UK simply walking away from the EU amounts to a no-deal Brexit and there are many threads here that talk about what that means. Among other things, it probably means a hard border with Ireland (and the lack of a hard border is a big reason there’s been peace there) and it means that all trade with the EU has to go through customs. That would greatly slow imports and exports. In short, it would be a mess.
That, and the fact that it would mean we essentially have NO trade agreements with the EU, meaning we’d need to revert to unfavourable WTO trade agreements. We’d be financially screwed, and our supermarket shelves would dry up pretty bloody quickly. There’s a reason some people are stockpiling food, and drugs.
It would be World War 2 on the home front all over again.
Somewhere I heard that a delay of even a minute or so at the ports to clear trucks through customs would mean backups of hours, because there is so much shipping between the UK and the rest of the EU.
This is the thing. The no-deal Brexit is exactly what OP postulates. What it means then is that until/unless the Brits come up with a deal, their citizens have no more right to travel to the EU than members of Nigeria or Bhutan, until the EU updates their rules. now consider the tens of thousands such situations - agricultural products, manufactured goods, copyright… incoming shipments must then clear customs just like stuff shipped from Uruguay. What forms need to be filled out? Nobody knows, because nobody from Britain had to fill out those forms before.
Part of the UK and Irish agreement entering the EU was that there would be essentially zero border hassles between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Now these two will be two separate countries with no agreement between them any more. Does this mean they need to put up customs stops between the two? Or maybe leave things as they are and have an internal customs wall between Northern Ireland and the rest of Britain?
If the UK decides to simplify things by meeting the same health and safety standards for say, food or electrical goods or chemicals, who certifies this? Does EU take the word of British inspectors or would Britain pay for U inspectors to nose around its industry? Now of course, if they chose to match EU product regulations, they have essentially agreed to meet guidelines in which they have no say.
one of the most contentious areas of EU policy is agriculture - protecting their farmers. hey have no incentive to protect or give preference to UK farmers any longer. What are the implications for that?
the EU, too, is not motivated to make things easier for Britain leaving, after all, why encourage other countries by showing it’s easy? Make if difficult and disruptive for Britain. Even when they want to cooperate, countries can take years to reach mutual trade agreements. Britain is way too late to this party.
As you can see, the implications of leaving without a deal are complex and highly disruptive. It makes an acrimonious divorce look simple.
True. And so would the EU.
Since we’re in GQ, can you provide a cite for that? According to local businesspeople with whom I’ve spoken, post-Brexit trade is simply not seen as a problem.
As I’ve said before, it’s statements like that that helped Leave win the referendum. But we’ve been through all that in other threads.
Right now, the real issue appears to be the ongoing uncertainty. Businesses can cope with in or out but they need to know which it is going to be.
This is not a problem.
Not with respect to Europe but the UK is a trading nation and that’s not a problem. Allow me to quote a letter from the Telegraph:
Even between the USA and Canada with a fairly comprehensive free trade deal, the amount of paperwork required is significant. At one point, they were fining truckers substantial amounts if their import documents were not faxed to the border point at least 12 hours before the truck arrived. I suspect Mister Kirby does not fill in the forms himself and has someone who takes care of shipping and knows what forms to fill. IIRC, typically in Canada they use bonded warehouses to ship to the USA - i.e. the load is checked and certified during loading and thus does not need to be opened and inspected at the border. that sor of infrastructure does not exist n the UK - even the border points don’t exist - because they haven’t needed it to now.
The UK has treaty obligations as an EU member, and simply repudiating them would be a breach of international law. This would expose the UK to sanctions (and, obviously, the EU is big enough and near enough to apply sanctions that would be quite effective in bringing home to the UK the unwisdom of such behaviour). And of course it would create lasting ill-will from the EU. Equally importantly, this would trash the UK’s reputation as a trustworthy international player. Why would any country make treaties with the UK if the UK holds itself free to disregard its treaty obligations? For these reasons the UK government has never, even in its wildest moments, considered leaving the EU other than by following the leaving processes provided in the Treaties.
Note that this is different from a no-deal Brexit. The Treaties provide for notice of intention to leave to be served, for a two-year negotiation period (which may be extended by agreement) and eventual departure, ideall on agreed terms but, if no agreement can be reached, then without agreement. That would be a no-deal Brexit, and it would not be illegal. But simply walking away without serving notice, and without waiting for the period stipulated in the Treaties to expire, and without any attempt to agree the terms of departure, would be a breach of treaty obligations.
Northern Ireland aside, of course it does. We have ports and customs checks and everything. So does Europe. But the UK government have been very clever: the responsibility for taxes, duties, and so on is on the recipient. Plus random checks, of course. And don’t forget that containers and vehicles get checked for illegal immigrants too. And since everything is computerised these days, I’m told it’s really not a logistical problem. The goods get checked in and the computers calculate all relevant duties and taxes.
Brexit may or may not be a disaster, but logistics and import taxes and duties aren’t an issue.
Well said.
Does anybody still use fax?
I haven’t seen one come into the office in years.
Well, it’s good to know that you’ll have plenty of tablet counters in November 2019.
My opinion on a no-deal Brexit for what it’s worth and it should be noted, I’m not economist, just a dabbler. It would be painful, but not catastrophic. I think a recession is essentially a guarantee. The pound would likely devalue by quite a bit. Imports would cost significantly more. But in the relatively near term, I think that the devalued pound would actually make service industries more likely to relocate to the UK. If the US were to enter into a mostly free trade deal with the UK which our Dear Leader seems to at least hint at, then that would be a game changer. The UK could end up very well off when all is said and done. If the UK can negotiate better terms than the EU which seems extremely likely with Trump in office and I would even wager likely regardless of who is in office, it positions the UK as a link between Europe and the US that would be very attractive to multinationals. The reality is that the EU and the UK are going to negotiate a trade deal sooner or later. There’s too much trade between them to stunt it for any real length of time. I can’t imagine that by 2030 there wouldn’t be a trade deal in place. The question becomes how much does it hurt in the meantime and how generous a US-UK trade deal is. If the cards fall correctly, the UK could end up very much better off after a no-deal exit. Of course, if they don’t… Regardless, it would certainly be much, much better to have a deal in place. It would blunt many of the recession effects and provide stability.
The EU officials say, “we value the business we do with Britain, but we value the integrity of the Single Market even more. If necessary we can survive no-deal - you won’t.”
We’ve drifted from the question in the OP and UDS’s answer nailed it.
John Kirby is a titan of industry!
He’s not - here’s his company accounts history
A worthy, but small, business and I’m not sure his letter to the Telegraph really is a GQ-level cite.