It’s also worth noting that the deadline that the UK is counting down to is one which the UK effectively imposed on itself; Britain could, if desired, stop the clock for a variety of reasons. So the desperate need to come to an acceptable agreement by 29 March is one which could be resolved easily, if there was any political will to do so.
I believe that the final outcome over the next 72 days will be:
a failed renegotiation with the EU that will not satisfy parliament
a second referendum vote that will confirm the first Brexit referendum
a hard exit by Britain from the EU, as of March 29th
This will have significantly more negative consequences to Britain than it will to the EU.
How so? The clock ticking was established a couple of years ago. The only way to stop it is for Britain to decide to stay a part of the EU, which it’s citizens voted it’s desire to do. You trade a political crisis for a constitutional crisis within the British government.
Britain can ask the EU for an extension on the Article 50 deadline, but all of the remaining EU countries would have to agree. It has been reported that they would be willing to consider a short extension — say, until July. (But not beyond, probably, as that is when new MEPs take their seats.)
Thanks for that. I think he missed one faction - those insisting that people ride in the cheese-built submarine because it will work just fine.
From the news articles I’ve seen there is a substantial fraction of Leavers who think a hard Brexit will work out just fine.
Would a second referendum actually come up with the same result as the first? I thought a substantial number of “leave” voters believed (or were assured by the “leave” leaders) that the EU would agree to terms very favorable to the UK. Since this has clearly not turned out to be the case why would those voters again vote for “leave”?
It depends on the question in the referendum, really. If it’s just ‘Leave’ v ‘Remain’, it’ll be close.
If it’s ‘Remain’ vs ‘May’s Deal’ or vs ‘leave with no deal’ then Remain will smash it imo
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
There is no appetite in the country for a second referendum. I watched the evening news where they interviewed a dozen or more people; they were really trying to find someone who wanted one, but there was only one.
The most common sentiment was to compare the MPs to a bunch of kids who should be locked up together until they come to a consensus.
I don’t doubt, but if the MPs can’t, and time is running out, then a referendum would be the least shit resolution.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Didn’t you just chuck a bucket of sunshine down on that one? 
But you are right. Hard Brexit is the only outcome with a defined and agreed pathway.
By default that’s the way it will go. More’s the shame.
If a second referendum delivered a 55:45 Leave result then hard Brexit is “you got what you asked for”. Self inflicted disaster but oh dear, how sad, never mind.
If the second referendum delivered 50.1:49.9 either way it’s a bit disingenuous for the populace to demand pollies delivery certainty and equity on a question of such complexity. Sow the whirlwind, reap the whirlwind.
Firstly, stopping the clock now doesn’t mean stopping the clock forever. It means staying in the EU for now,until a clearer way forward is found.
Also, there wouldn’t be a constitutional crisis as there is no legal obligation to implement the result of a non-binding advisory referendum. There would be a political crisis, to be sure, but arguably we’re already there on that one.
The only way the UK can stop the clock unilaterally is by revoking its notification of intent to withdraw from the Union.
But, according to the European Court of Justice in the Wightman case, a revocation must be “unequivocal” and “unconditional”, The purpose of the revocation must be “to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State”, and it “brings the withdrawal procedure to an end”.
So if the UK served a withdrawal notice “until a clearer way forward is found”, I think the EU would be highly tempted to reject that as not unequivocal, and not having the purpose of bringing the withdrawal process to and end. As far as the EU is concerned, revocation is not something to be done because you don’t know what you want to do; it’s something to be done because you do know what you want to do, and what you want to do is to remain in the EU. The EU doesn’t have any patience for the indefinite prolongation of the UK’s psychodrama, and at this stage doesn’t want to be caught up in it for a moment longer than it has to.
If a member state needs more time to work out what it wants to do, the appropriate course to request an extension of the Article 50 period, not to cancel it altogether. Extension requires the agreement of the other member states. Attempting to revoke Article 50 notice, with a view to serving it again when you have worked out your strategy, would be seen as a transparent attempt to evade the requirement to obtain the consent of other members states to the prolongation of the process. At best, it would be seen as misconceived; at worst, as an act of gratuitous bad faith.
QUOTE=Gyrate;21435099]Also, there wouldn’t be a constitutional crisis as there is no legal obligation to implement the result of a non-binding advisory referendum. There would be a political crisis, to be sure, but arguably we’re already there on that one.
[/QUOTE]
This I agree with.
Sure, the EU would probably reject a revocation that was temporary, but why admit that? Just revoke it entirely. Say you are recommitting completely. You can only speak for the current government, and it will change in the future (likely sooner than later, given that half the country will be pissed that you revoked it).
Article 50 still exists, and so this new government could still invoke it, and the EU couldn’t stop them. Sure, the EU would probably be hesitant to allow a revocation of that version, but it’s still there.
The only reason to care is if you want to stay in power, but that seems to be a ship that has sailed. Accept that you won’t be in power much longer and do what’s best for Britain.
Well, you hint at one objection yourself; a revocation might only be politically acceptable domestically if stated to be for the purpose of regrouping and having another go, so to speak, but that might be fatal to the acceptance of the revocation by the EU. And there’s debate within the UK about whether the government could revoke on it’s own authority, or whether it would need the authority of Parliament. If the latter, it becomes necessary to give quite formal, quite public, accounts of what revocation is supposed to be for, so this couldn’t be easily fudged.
The other point, of course, if you revoke A50 intending (but not saying) that the opportunity be taken to have another go, but accept that as a result you are going to lose power, then you have no influence over whether the next government will in fact have another go. You’ve effectively handed the decision as to what the purpose of revocation is off to someone else - almost certainly a political opponent.
In short, revocation is a hightly risky way of buying more time. It might not work at all, if the EU judge it to be invalid and the ECJ upholds that view. (And by the time you find that out, 29 March will almost certainly have passed.) And, if it does work, it may come at the cost of abandoning control over how the extra time is used by the UK. Almost certainly, the better strategy is to be upfront about what you propose, seek an agreed extension of time from the EU, and persuade them that the extra time will be used constructively in a way likely to produce a better outcome (for the EU) than the likely outcome if extra time is not given.
Was the question concerning the Irish - NI border addressed before the referendum?
How about the other questions of the potential chaos?
The Vatican States aren’t a EU member, but I think they might be willing to provide the facilities for that if needed.
The “remain” side generally didn’t address much of anything, and when they addressed anything it was in a reactive way (“that makes no sense sigh”). The “leave” side either handwaved things or claimed that the only ones who would be harmed were some sort of “they”: rich expats (because there is no such thing as British expats working as waiters, only inmigrants to the UK working as waiters and rich expats), inmigrants, corporations…
FWIW the latest odds on Betfair (a person-to-person betting exchange, which should approximate to the “wisdom of crowds”) indicate that there’s only about a 16% chance of Brexit going ahead by the original March 29 deadline. Of course, the Betfair odds got the original referendum result (and the US election result, FWIW) spectacularly wrong, so don’t trust them too far!
Also we should point out the EU is not going to make it easy to leave.
There’s that fake motivational poster showing a picture of a disaster, a ship sinking, “Maybe your purpose in life is to serve as an object lesson to others”.
The EU is definitely making UK an object lesson to others who might consider leaving. And, of course, the UK does not have a lot of leverage.
Yes, you it’s harder to negotiate an exit in your favor, when you’ve already declared that you’re leaving, and have a statutory obligation to do so within a fixed timeframe.
Why do you think a second referendum would confirm the first referendum? There is a reason the leavers are so adamantly opposed to a second referendum. They are not confident it will confirm the first one and polls confirm it.