Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[mongers]

Phew. Eagle is out.

Smith looks like a much better candidate.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think the Uk is under all that much pressure. See Euro threatening for article 50 to be triggered and UK chilling.

Yeah I don't think there's any pressure at the minute. As RH says there's a legal challenge on how article 50 can be triggered. That article is interesting because it talks about the 'devolved institutions' not administrations which suggests the Scottish Parliament etc (rather than the Scottish Government) may have to be consulted. I imagine that process will, in any event, have to be formal. I also wouldn't be surprised if there was a legal challenge on how much consultation and consent is required of the devolved nations. At the moment at least there is no real urgency to trigger it, maybe there will be by the time the Supreme Court hears the appeal (assuming it does) in Spring 2017. Personally I think this is a big constitutional moment and it's right that we ensure a correct legal and formal framework exists for it, so that it's done in an orderly way with an appropriate method of making sure that the government, as far as possible, is negotiating for the UK rather than just themselves.

Incidentally that's another reason I expect May will go for an election. She's got a majority of 12 and has fired about 30-40 ministers including almost all the 'Cameroons'. It'll be tougher to go to Parliament regarding Brexit with that sort of slim majority following the attrition of normal government.

Also I think at the moment much of the European response - like the Remainer response - still seems quite emotional and quite political rather than about policy. But that'll change. At some point I think Europe needs to decide what its position is going to be. It seems to me that they've got three policy goals: that Britain leaves quickly; that there's a good relationship afterward (whether for economic or security reasons); and that there's a degree of punishment/deterrence in the terms. Those three don't naturally go together, Europe needs to decide what balance it wants to strike and how it wants to attain that.

Obviously the UK does have a far weaker hand but it's not supine and I'm still not sure that there's enough talk in Europe of what next. As I say several British reporters in European capitals are commenting on how common the assumption is that Brexit won't happen.

[Sheilbh]

Phew. Eagle is out.

Probably for the best. But I do find it really weird that the saviour candidate is basically an actual Kinnock tribute act.

He's a left-wing, Welsh unilateralist who will run on a self-indulgent left-wing manifesto and then slowly ditching it as we tilt towards relevance again (2025?). It's bizarrely brazen.

[Zanza]

No. You are arguing from a different premise than me and Tamas and thus come to different conclusions. That's ok, but unless you are willing to engage with our premise, namely that the UK has more to lose and thus is under higher pressure, you'll not follow the rest of our argument either.

I am not starting with the conclusion, that is true.  I think it intellectual folly to build an argument on an unnecessary and potentially precisely-the-opposite-of-true premise.  I understand the emotional attraction of being able to select your data to fit your desired conclusion, but don't get your pretense that it is intellectually attractive.

Full agreement except that I and presumably Tamas did not select the premise to fit some preconceived conclusion. It is just the formulation of our perception of the political realities. I understood that you have a different perception and thus have different premises. That's a perfectly normal situation and the reason why we need politics to order our society at all. If everybody always had the same perception there would be little to debate upon. I can fully understand your argument, I just disagree with its basic premise.

That said, I would not go so far to suggest you selected that premise to fit some preconceived conclusion. I find such an insinuation unhelpful when a different perception of political realities is a much simpler explanation.

[Zanza]

I don't see why the pressure is on the UK.  I think Sheilbh's suggestion is an eminently sound one, and don't see why Tamas is arguing that this would sacrifice a "huge advantage" for the EU.  You agree with Tamas but don't explain why.  What is the huge advantage?

If you don't see why the pressure is on the UK it's clear that you also don't get the follow on argument that Tamas made.

In other words, you can't answer my question, but don't want to admit it so you claim that i cannot understand the answer you cannot articulate! 

That's kinda what I thought.  Intellectual responses just don't feel good enough for you?

No. You are arguing from a different premise than me and Tamas and thus come to different conclusions. That's ok, but unless you are willing to engage with our premise, namely that the UK has more to lose and thus is under higher pressure, you'll not follow the rest of our argument either.

I don't think the Uk is under all that much pressure. See Euro threatening for article 50 to be triggered and UK chilling.

Tamas argument was that once article 50 is triggered the EU 27 have an advantage in their negotiation position (and they would thus not negotiate before) as time is ticking down and the UK has more to lose, i.e. the UK is under pressure. So I fail to see the relevance of your comment as you talk about now, i.e. the time before article 50 is triggered.

[Sheilbh]

Some really interesting/weird polling out the last couple of days.

Public concern about immigration in one poll was down about 10% despite there being no change, which does suggest there's something to Theresa May's argument that it's about control/perception of control rather than numbers. What's also really interesting is that demographic groups that generally voted Leave have swung by about 20% from either wanting to stop immigration permanently or stop immigration until the economy improves to supporting immigration of skilled workers.

Also hugely polarised opinions on the economy. Everyone thinks the economy will do worse in the next 1-5 years but then opinion starts to diverge. Asking for the next 10-20 years and demographic groups that voted Leave think it will improve while Remainers (ABC1s etc) are very pessimistic.

Meanwhile it looks like the government has dropped the net immigration target. Cameron always campaigned on getting it into the 'tens of thousands not the hundreds of thousands'. May always hated the promise because she saw it as undeliverable in the EU. Now Rudd and Johnson have both distanced the government from it while Liam Fox has previously said a migration target is ridiculous as it should be tied to the needs of the country/economy.

[Admiral Yi]

Does anyone know what the statutory deadline would be if the exit were involuntary, i.e., if Britain were to be kicked out for not abiding by the rules?

[Sheilbh]

That's a big leap though. The UK tends to be a fairly conscientious member when it comes to following the rules.

The actual 'punishment' for that is sanctioning, but internal EU sanctions so it's fines like for breaching stability and growth pact.

There is no provision to expel a member from the EU - though it was discussed during the drafting. The extent is that a state can be suspended but it's for persistent breaches of the EU's founding values: dignity of the individual, human rights, democracy etc. It's difficult and has never been done - I'd hope Hungary is sailing close to the wind. My understanding is that the Member State has the right to make representations to the Council who may then make recommendations but can also suspend (with the support of the European Parliament). It's then indefinite but again the Council has a duty to monitor to make sure the breaches are continuing - which is an interesting feature in itself as generally in the EU the monitoring role, especially in relation to treaty provisions, is reserved to the Commission.

[Richard Hakluyt]

There are ways of suspending a member state but no way to expel them, presumably one would be found if a member started behaving truly awfully.

Incidentally, Britain is abiding by the rules 

[Sheilbh]

Surely to God Hungary's a target for that. I mean the rule of law is a founding value.

[Zanza]

I predict Britain will be doing fine economically and as a consequence immigration will stay where it is.

[Admiral Yi]

I was thinking of a situation in which political pressure mounts to curb EU immigration. 

[Richard Hakluyt]

@Sheilbh - I don't think we have discussed the net immigration target before on Languish............but what a stupid idea it was...............comparable to those town councils that declared themselves nuclear-free zones back in the day. Given membership of the EU and free movement it simply was not in the UK government's control, so the target was a gift to brexiters really.

[Josquius]

The EU was unnecessary. Non eu migration remains higher than eu migration as it has every year.
The target was stupidly low.

[Gups]

Phew. Eagle is out.

Probably for the best. But I do find it really weird that the saviour candidate is basically an actual Kinnock tribute act.

He's a left-wing, Welsh unilateralist who will run on a self-indulgent left-wing manifesto and then slowly ditching it as we tilt towards relevance again (2025?). It's bizarrely brazen.

He's not a unilateralist. He just voted to renew Trident