Britain leaving the European Union.


#3920

No there isnt.
The EU has emerged from the EEC, thence into the the EC in 1993 via Maastrict until it was revoked in 2009 and the EU emerged with the Lisbon Treaty in 2009.

The EU is 9 years old.

This.

And this.


#3921

Lol.

You can’t be that condescending and that wrong at the same time. Pick one.


#3922

There’s over 60 years of EU legislation, going back to the Treaty of Rome. It’s been amended but not revoked. Same goes for the treaty of Maastricht. [See its ‘in force’ status on [url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:JOC_1992_191_R_0001_01]EUR-Lex]


#3923

Indeed, wow! :laughing:


#3924

I don’t know. There is a big bang next 29th March unless there is at this point an extra ordinary effort put in to avoid it. All treaties, agreements etc come crashing down at that point in time. This is not like most deadlines, which are really only a hint at a date by which which time it is hoped to start negotiations, and then really only start negotiations if something else more interesting doesn’t come up in the mean time. This date next March is a different beast altogether which people aren’t familiar with. This date is absolute and there is no easy way to extend it. Any deal to avoid this needs to be agreed by EU commission, European Parliament etc and probably most difficult of all it needs to be agreed by the head bangers in the UK Parliament. All this needs to be done before March.

There are only three options on the table now.

  1. Extend the duration of A50. Technically this is straight forward, but politically difficult.
  2. A custom negotiated deal. Extraordinary difficult technically to organize and is turning out to be all but politically impossible. Besides we seem to be out of time.
  3. Crashing out.

Now, obviously if option ‘1’ is taken it will be spun differently. It will be smudged and fudged over to try to give a face saving way out of the situation we find our selves. This though requires everyone to play along. Everyone knows it’s a fudge but no one calls it what it is. This fudge requires good faith on everyone’s behalf. The UK Parliament though is deadlocked and unable to function at present. There are a large number of its members who seem intent on watching the country burn. There are also those that are doing everything they possibly can to poison relations and seed mistrust.

Two years ago I thought there was a negligible chance of a crash out happening. Now I’m betting it’s the most probable option.


#3925

It won’t be just airlines. Long haul sea transport to and from Britain will have to start plannining soon too.


#3926

One thing I forgot to add, the biggest risk of disruption after Brexit is going to be from jobsworths who will query every single process that they carry out and will not do anything with express instructions from their management, regardless of the consequences.

Think of traffic wardens who will ticket a car who’s driver fas just dropped dead of a heart attack.


#3927

The main difference I see between the GFC and Brexit is that the GFC was everyone in the West’s problem. They all had a vested interest in sorting it out. Is it in the EU’s/US/China’s stategic interset to dig Britain out of a hole?
The GFC only affected one part of the economy, the banks. Brexit is all parts of the economy, it also affects defence, education, transport, justice. That’s a lot of late nights, they’d want to be getting started last year to hit March '19.
Brexit is a regional problem, mostly Britain and Irelands with it’s ramifications lessening as it radiates out. I can’t see the US power structures sitting through the night like it did for the GFC to pass rules to allow Britain to trade as it does presently under the EU. Will the Chinese politburo?


#3928

If they want to avoid chaos, they will.


#3929

Given the UK does a lot of trade with the rest of the world under EU trade agreements, what will happen there, we are all aware of how the EU will treat them but by the sounds of it the ROTW will treat them the same if there is a risk of WTO litigation on anything other than WTO rules without separate trade agreements? I’ve read nothing of trade negotiations with the ROTW.


#3930

Scarily, I think they actually do.


#3931

I expect that global traders will continue to operate under existing rules until new rules supersede them, after all in the real world they want minimal disruption.
To take a silly analogy, you’re driving down a road and come to a section where the white line has worn away or is missing due to road works, would you stop driving because you can’t see the centreline any more or continue to drive but keep to the left, many here seem to believe that traders will do the former.


#3932

Good analogy but just like driving along the Borderlands it’s easy to get caught out by signage for the speed limit changing between klm and mpr.


#3933

It is in everyone’s collective interest to pretend that nothing has changed, but it will not be in individual’s interest to do so.

Sometime after the Brexit date there will be a mundane routine issue. There will be a car accident, or something similar, which will leave a number of people seriously injured and the insurance company will be on the hook for millions in claims. It may be callous to call this a routine issue, but accidents like this happen every day. When this happens the insurance company will look through all the legal agreements in minute detail and come up with a Brexit related reason why they don’t have to pay. A car accident results in millions in insurance claims, airline accidents results in hundreds of millions. The numbers are just too big to pretend and play along that nothing has changed.

Does anyone really believe the insurance companies will pay out millions when they don’t have to?


#3934

I’m not sure it is a good analogy. How about this one: you’re flying on holiday and they don’t check your passport on the way out. When you arrive in Britain, your passport is expired. What do you reckon the British border force do with you? My guess is they ship you right back on the next flight from whence you came. The uncertainty at the point of send means goods won’t be accepted for send. It may be that some goods are already in flight and will be accepted under the ‘old’ rules, but this is a delay.

Back to your road analogy. Imagine if the rule that said you drove on the left also was no longer in force and it wasn’t clear what replaced it. The roads become a freeforall, would you be happy to drive on them?

edit: and, as the Curious One says, you’re also no longer insured… or might not be…


#3935

irishtimes.com/business/fin … -1.3594630


#3936

So when it goes bust, we bail it out. What can go wrong


#3937

It’ll be the ECB on the hook next time will it not?


#3938

Don’t think so, so long as the ultimate parent remains City of London regulated entity, it is up to the UK to step in to protect it’s subsidiary


#3939

Using the Passport analogy, you’re referring to one individual, if all the arrivals has passports that that had expired all at the same time, would you turn back planeloads or boatloads. The chaos would be extreme in the least, that is why it may be prudent by all sides to carry on under the existing rules until they are replaced.

The road analogy fails on the side you drive on as everyone already knows which side to drive on but they may not know what speed limit is in force and would probably (mostly) continue at the same speed they were already travelling, until they see a sign that states otherwise.

The bottom line is that a hard Brexit only becomes a really difficult phase if certain people want it to be!