[Discussion] Brexit means Brexit

Discuss the political fallout and other issues around Britain's exit, Brexit for short, from the EU.

For the sake of clarity, I'm including the full text of Article 50.

Article 50 wrote:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Actually, British corporate tax rates have gone down so fast and low in the past decade as to be comparable to tax certain jurisdictions viewed as quasi-tax havens. This was in part due to EU tax directives which make it silly to headquarter in your home jurisdiction in certain circumstances and also in response to Dutch, Irish, Luxembourg et al applying aggressive tax treaties and granting huge concessions to multinationals. Back when Brexit was first looming, I wrote an article about how international tax structures using the UK in conjunction with those other haven-like jurisdictions would need to be dismantled in a Brexit scenario.

Tldr; some parts of the world already view the UK as tax haven-ish.

Bfgp wrote:

Tldr; some parts of the world already view the UK as tax haven-ish.

And how

May is referring to the deal that will be negotiated after the exit is formally signed in March.

Which means it hasn 't been signed yet, and can still be stopped.

DanB wrote:
Bfgp wrote:

Tldr; some parts of the world already view the UK as tax haven-ish.

And how

Check the UK corporate tax rate vs quasi-tax havens like Ireland, the Netherlands; Hong Kong and Sinapore.

Check out UK dividend participation exemption rules (it's not uncommon tax policy internationally but put that aside for the moment).

Check the EU tax directives.

The outcome is that you can strip EU profits via the UK and bring them back to non-EU jurisdictions with less tax impost globally than if you were to go direct into the EU. This is common knowledge in international tax practitioner circles, who are currently scrambling to work out a post-Brexit tax structure.

Malor wrote:
so if Parliament declines that deal the UK WON'T be reverting to the 2015 status quo,

Unless I missed something somewhere, Parliament has to actually authorize Brexit. The public vote was advisory/non-binding, and Parliament is the only entity in the British government that can trigger Article 50.

No matter what noises May makes, it's not happening unless Parliament says so. You could end up in the position you describe, but right now, it's 2015 status quo, and it's not changing without explicit affirmation from the ministers.

Yes, right now the UK Supreme Court is considering whether that UK High Court ruling that Parliamentary assent is required to trigger Article 50. This vote to trigger Article 50 is separate from the Parliamentary Vote that May talked about in her speak. May is offering that at the end of the EU negotiation, there will be a second vote by Parliament on whether to accept the agreement reached. What is not clear is if Parliament vote reject the agreement reached by May and EU. Does everything legally return to the status quo pre-Article 50 triggering or does the UK just leave?

Right now the position on whether an Article 50 notification is reversible is up in the air. When it was written it was pretty unthinkable that anyone would leave so it's not clear. That's what the action in the Irish Courts is about, getting it appealed to the ECJ so they can provide a definitive ruling ( http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime... ).

Obviously if Article 50 is not reversible and the UK would have to rejoin using the Article 49 procedure after this farce. Then it is a done deal. The UK would find it impossible to re-join under the requirement that they adopt the Euro and without all the exceptions they had written for themselves.

The first parliamentary vote is a done deal and it might be the only one that matters.

"Non-binding referendum" looks progressively stupider the longer this goes on.

The first parliamentary vote is a done deal and it might be the only one that matters.

Wait. So, maybe this is the bit I missed: Parliament has explicitly voted to trigger Article 50? (or to give that authority to May's government?)

The last I heard, the only actual legal action taken was a non-binding public advisory vote.

DanB wrote:
pyxistyx wrote:

#indyref2. Now.

Testify sister!

#rebuildhadrianswallfacingtheotherway

The faster you get out of union, the faster Kittylexy gets her Scottish citizenship

Alien Love Gardener wrote:
DanB wrote:
pyxistyx wrote:

#indyref2. Now.

Testify sister!

#rebuildhadrianswallfacingtheotherway

So, a North-South wall then? Or did you mean a wall to keep the sky out, because those are called ceilings.

Jonman wrote:
Alien Love Gardener wrote:
DanB wrote:
pyxistyx wrote:

#indyref2. Now.

Testify sister!

#rebuildhadrianswallfacingtheotherway

So, a North-South wall then? Or did you mean a wall to keep the sky out, because those are called ceilings.

A north-south wall to keep those horrible Little Englanders away from our lovely Scottish brethren*.

*I am also willing to consider some sort of airlift program for London. But only if they expel those nasty tories.

Alien Love Gardener wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Alien Love Gardener wrote:

#rebuildhadrianswallfacingtheotherway

So, a North-South wall then? Or did you mean a wall to keep the sky out, because those are called ceilings.

A north-south wall to keep those horrible Little Englanders away from our lovely Scottish brethren*.

*I am also willing to consider some sort of airlift program for London. But only if they expel those nasty tories.

Hadrian's wall runs east-west and faces north-south. If you build it facing the "other" way, you've either cut Glasgow off from Edinburgh (probably pleasing residents of both cities ), or you've built a ceiling.

I am not looking strict adherence to the geography of the wall as much as the metaphorical meaning; much as the wall was meant to keep the savage picts as bay, we need to keep the degenerate little Englander at bay and quarantine them while they eat themselves. Basically, Doomsday, but with England instead of Scotland.*

*I am super drunk on airport whisky right now.

I assume that "facing the other way" implies a rotation of 180°

So rebuilding hadrian's wall to "face the otherway" would be to assemble the wall such that it is there to keep the sassenachs out of the Highlands. As opposed to it's original use

Walls are for folks that keep constantly getting Invaded and Conquered.

That's why England's always been such a big fan of them I think

WELL A 180 IS PRETTY MEANINGFUL IF THERE'S METAPHORICAL SPIKES ON ONE END OF THE WALL ISN'T IT

#SHUTUPIMDRUNK

The problem with the English: England doesn’t want to be just another member of a team

Brexit is the result of an English delusion, a crisis of identity resulting from a failure to come to terms with the loss of empire and the end of its own exceptionalism, argues Cambridge University professor Nicholas Boyle.

I'm an American, so I have no idea how accurate this is, but a lot of it struck me as plausible. It's a much more thorough and reasoned version of what I said above, that English conservatives seem to have a much higher opinion of England than its actual status would seem to warrant.

After reading that, more and more, Brexit strikes me as a 'better to rule in hell than serve in heaven' scenario.

Malor wrote:

The problem with the English: England doesn’t want to be just another member of a team

Brexit is the result of an English delusion, a crisis of identity resulting from a failure to come to terms with the loss of empire and the end of its own exceptionalism, argues Cambridge University professor Nicholas Boyle.

I'm an American, so I have no idea how accurate this is, but a lot of it struck me as plausible. It's a much more thorough and reasoned version of what I said above, that English conservatives seem to have a much higher opinion of England than its actual status would seem to warrant.

After reading that, more and more, Brexit strikes me as a 'better to rule in hell than serve in heaven' scenario.

It strikes me as extremely plausible. The English hate their neighbors because they're all inferior, usually for a single, enormously bigoted reason based on a historical caricature that's hilariously out of date if it was ever true in the first place (e.g. Scots are tightfisted, Irish are drunks, Welsh are sheep-shaggers, Germans are Nazis, French are surrender-monkeys, Americans are fat).

The sense of English exceptionalism is as strong in the English psyche, if not stronger, than the corresponding American one, and has a much, much longer history.

I don't agree with his opening salvo where he off-handedly dismisses the economic issues which surely underpin brexit. I don't think there can be such a clean separation such that national identity is the only motivating force.

And yet... as a Scot who has lived all my adult life in England the rest of that piece totally rings true. It puts in to words things I've always been aware of but never quite had the perspective to articulate as clearly.

I'm going to hate seeing the American version of that, given the tantrum we got when some people thought we were somehow less great, despite still being the sole superpower. The loss of the American empire isn't going to be pretty.

(For example: look at this American making the Brexit thread about America!)

There is no question that the attitude exists. While I do agree with Dan that you cannot completely dismiss economic issues and how the wealth is distributed in Britain you also cannot deny English exceptionalism does exist.

It's a bit long but this example from RTE only from yesterday is indicative of how the attitude manifests itself towards it's neighbours. A commentator from the Telegraph, Liam Halligan, starts with a position that Britain and Ireland have a strong relationship, even using the dreadful phrase "blood ties", and that essentially the EU better not disrupt this mutually beneficial arrangement. This leads to a rather gentle rebuke by one of our MEPs, Brian Hayes, that Ireland has done a great deal better under the EU that the UK. I'd say many listening weren't quite so polite.

Fine. The presenter then leads to questions in a direction that are very much in Ireland's interest and starts asking about food cost. Completely unaware that he is being led into trap, Halligan gleefully states that, yes, once out of the EU Britain can import food from less regulated areas of the world. At this point both presenter and MEP almost laugh at Halligan in his lack of understanding at point out that this would be return of the "cheap food" policy that did no favours to Ireland for centuries.

As an aside, I would point out that Ireland's GDP per capita is more than double of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. You know what you have to do pyxistyx.

Malor wrote:
The first parliamentary vote is a done deal and it might be the only one that matters.

Wait. So, maybe this is the bit I missed: Parliament has explicitly voted to trigger Article 50? (or to give that authority to May's government?)

The last I heard, the only actual legal action taken was a non-binding public advisory vote.

Parliament has not voted to trigger Article 50. May was claiming that she could do it by royal prerogative. As you can see by the article linked, that was challenged in the High Court. The government lost and appealed it to the Supreme Court. The judgement will be available on Tuesday at 9:30 local time. Very few expect a different result. However very few expect parliament not to support the result of the referendum.

That's the first case. The second case is one being brought by an English QC to the Irish High Court to test the irreversibility of Article 50. While the case will be interesting to follow, I remain to be convinced that the ECJ will read the article's intention any differently than the author's. Who is still around. As are all the leaders who agreed for such an article to be inserted.

So the long and short is after two court cases, the very real chance is that either won't have much material difference to events. But forecasting this mess is a fool's game so I'd take all that with a health warning.

Briefly coming back to this article has made me realise that the enmity the Scots have for English isn't a dislike of English people (some of my best friends are English...). Instead it is a deep distaste for the features of Englishness discussed in that article.

Parliament has not voted to trigger Article 50.

Yeah, that's what I thought, and I'd be shocked if your Supreme Court said that your executive branch had that kind of sweeping power. That would be a crazy thing to give to a single person. (edit: I realize that it's probably not CALLED the Executive Branch there, but... you get idea. The Prime Minster should absolutely not be able to abrogate a treaty on their own recognizance, and withdrawing from the EU is probably the biggest treaty repudiation that England has ever considered.)

However very few expect parliament not to support the result of the referendum.

Well, very few expected Brexit to win, but it still did. You can still stop this, if you're willing to fight hard enough.

DanB wrote:

Briefly coming back to this article has made me realise that the enmity the Scots have for English isn't a dislike of English people (some of my best friends are English...). Instead it is a deep distaste for the features of Englishness discussed in that article.

I'd like to echo that. And that the accusation that the Irish are drunks isn't exactly completely untrue

Malor wrote:
However very few expect parliament not to support the result of the referendum.

Well, very few expected Brexit to win, but it still did. You can still stop this, if you're willing to fight hard enough.

Perhaps. But I think there is little that can be done to avoid the triggering of article 50 due to May controlling the timeline and the numbers in Parliament. The UK residents on this thread might be able to convince some Labour MPs to defy the whip but it looks as if Corbyn is happy to let May begin the process. If May and Corbyn stick to their stated aims, it's a done deal. March is far too short a timeline to mount a grass roots revolt.

Once she does, however, things are in flux. Once the reality of the negotiations sinks in, once May and Corbyn start having to defend their decisions to unhappy audiences, once a party or possibly a cross coalition of MPs come out against leaving the Single Market, once the public realises that trade deals are not going to be completed in a matter of months but years, once inflation starts to really bite due to a falling pound, then there is traction for a movement.

If I were to guess what the preferred option is for the majority of the EU27 and the UK is now, I'd say it's EEA membership first, with some caveats to make it acceptable to both sides, and if the UK wants back in they have to accept everything. Euro, schengan, the whole shooting match. This will still hurt London but it's by far the least disruptive option short of full membership. The UK has to ask for it though and this is where civil unrest can play a huge part. It will still go down as possibly the worst case of self-harm for nation state in peacetime.

Of course, if Article 50 is reversible that changes all the above. However I seriously doubt the ECJ will allow countries trigger Article 50 without any consequences. It would render the EU completely unworkable. Of course, thinking about it now, they could make it reversible, allow the UK to back out and then ratify a new treaty amending Article 50. Wouldn't be the first time the EU has fudged a "rule". Wouldn't hang my hat on that theory, though.

Axon wrote:
DanB wrote:

Briefly coming back to this article has made me realise that the enmity the Scots have for English isn't a dislike of English people (some of my best friends are English...). Instead it is a deep distaste for the features of Englishness discussed in that article.

I'd like to echo that. And that the accusation that the Irish are drunks isn't exactly completely untrue

YUP. Thirded.

Axon wrote:

Of course, if Article 50 is reversible that changes all the above. However I seriously doubt the ECJ will allow countries trigger Article 50 without any consequences. It would render the EU completely unworkable. Of course, thinking about it now, they could make it reversible, allow the UK to back out and then ratify a new treaty amending Article 50. Wouldn't be the first time the EU has fudged a "rule". Wouldn't hang my hat on that theory, though.

Interestingly Article 50 specifically exists so that the EU is a fully voluntary organisation. It was specifically added to avoid the kind of turmoil the US experienced when some states attempted to cede the union, where membership is not voluntary.

You'd imagine that it would be in the spirit of the law to allow states to change their minds (come to their senses) and terminate an Article 50 proceed. But who can say.

Malor wrote:
Parliament has not voted to trigger Article 50.

Yeah, that's what I thought, and I'd be shocked if your Supreme Court said that your executive branch had that kind of sweeping power. That would be a crazy thing to give to a single person. (edit: I realize that it's probably not CALLED the Executive Branch there, but... you get idea. The Prime Minster should absolutely not be able to abrogate a treaty on their own recognizance, and withdrawing from the EU is probably the biggest treaty repudiation that England has ever considered.)

Well yes that would be the sane/rational way to think about such things but the British constitution is an odd beast that kind of got cobbled together over 100s of years. The way our constitution frames things supreme political authority rest singly in The Crown (the monarch). But because of 'history' the monarch no longer exercises that political power directly and has vested this power on their behalf in the cabinet and parliament.

So there is an odd historical division of the regent's powers between those two bodies. Importantly here the cabinet gets to exercise "Royal Prerogative" over a range of issues, meaning there are all sorts of matters where it can just unilaterally decide. And it looked for quite a while that one of these issues was treaty negotiations and there is a perfectly cogent legal constitutional argument for that to be the case. And there was also a good legal argument that Royal Prerogative did not apply in this instance, which is why this all ended up in the High Court.

Axon wrote:
DanB wrote:

Of course, if Article 50 is reversible that changes all the above. However I seriously doubt the ECJ will allow countries trigger Article 50 without any consequences. It would render the EU completely unworkable. Of course, thinking about it now, they could make it reversible, allow the UK to back out and then ratify a new treaty amending Article 50. Wouldn't be the first time the EU has fudged a "rule". Wouldn't hang my hat on that theory, though.

Interestingly Article 50 specifically exists so that the EU is a fully voluntary organisation. It was specifically added to avoid the kind of turmoil the US experienced when some states attempted to cede the union, where membership is not voluntary.

You'd imagine that it would be in the spirit of the law to allow states to change their minds (come to their senses) and terminate an Article 50 proceed. But who can say.

The spirit of the law is very clear. You can request to join and leave at any time. I don't see how a irreversible Article 50 changes that. It merely makes sure that it cannot be used as method to sow chaos for the EU. It's the same reason the veto was removed on many areas and QMV was introduced. Thatcher taught us all that lesson. Can you imagine how badly abused Article 50 would be if it could be triggered without consequence?

And, Dan, be honest with yourself, this wasn't a "leave of senses". Corbyn is backing brexit and campaigned during the referendum in what appears now in a dishonest manner. He and his ilk wanted out for years. Leaving the EU has been a goal of both left and right in the UK for decades now. Outside of the Lib Dems, very few voices made any kind of concerted effort to sell the benefits of the EU to the wider public. You can choose to blame the right wing media for these attitudes but it's not as if the Unions did much to correct them.

I'm not saying a method can't be found but it's really not in the EU's interest to undermine the union because the UK has shot itself in the foot. Especially when we all begged them not to.

Axon wrote:
DanB wrote:

Briefly coming back to this article has made me realise that the enmity the Scots have for English isn't a dislike of English people (some of my best friends are English...). Instead it is a deep distaste for the features of Englishness discussed in that article.

I'd like to echo that. And that the accusation that the Irish are drunks isn't exactly completely untrue

TL:DR version: The English aren't hated because they're English, they're hated because they're wankers.