So you’re referring to a potential ‘window’ period of unspecified length (24 hours? 72 hours?) during which there may be some teething problems in terms of bureaucratic oversight? And after which business as usual, would be resumed?
While I certainly take your point about unprecedented levels of uncertainty applying to everything connected to Brexit currently, I don’t share the perception that it may cause systemic collapse or anything like it.
The respective civil services have years of experience of reinventing their own work practices based around events as they unfold, be they Directives or ongoing political or legal events. And while the noises coming from within the British civil service may be playing up suggestions of chaotic outcomes it needs to be remembered that many are the most vested of interests when it comes to maintaining the umbilical chord to Brussels. I cannot accept that journalists or contributors to an online forum such as this are ahead of the game vis a vis the people who will have direct responsibility for such matters come the day of reckoning.
So there may be a degree of disruption as there is with all change but as another poster previously noted, in 2008 the financial system did not collapse. The world kept turning and those with responsibility for such matters simply rewrote the manual to ensure that the wheels of commerce kept on keeping on…and I say that as someone who at that time very much bought into the notion that things would go apocalyptic.
The same will happen in this instance, albeit messily.
We only have to look at Anglo-Irish relations when the two governments were barely on talking terms for most of a century it was civil servants on both side who bridged the gaps of necessity on a “what they don’t need to know won’t harm them basis”.
The shear number of treaties, regulations, policies, guidelines, case law etc that are in place to make everything work would literally take a forklift to move if they were all printed out. They are all tied together by a couple of concepts: The underlying treaty and the ECJ. These underlying concepts are being voided next March. Everything comes crashing down.
What are they going to replace it with and more to the point who exactly is going to do this work? There are literally only a handful of people in Ireland qualified to write such agreements. Any new agreement after a messy Brexit will take a long time to even write out.
To say that the manual was rewritten in 2008 is simply wrong. The Irish executive, the Taoiseach, Minister of Finance etc. have enormous legal authority. They have more legal authority than most people realized. No laws were changed and new laws were introduced at the time. Some tweaks here and there happened in the subsequent years. They exercised pre-existing executive authority that they had. I may not agree with what was done but I fully aware that what was done was fully within the authority of the executive.
No one in the EU has the power to make UK driving licenses valid by executive order. Only the EU Parliament has that authority. And the EU moves slowly.
What you’re saying, is that Brexit (whatever that ends up being) probably won’t lead to systemic collapse.
What I’m saying, is that failure to have a withdrawal agreement, which includes a transition period, in place by the 29th of March next year would absolutely lead to systemic collapse. Certainly within the UK, and it would have very severe repercussions outside of the UK.
However, the most likely outcome, in my opinion, is that a withdrawal agreement will be reached, which will include a backstop provision very close to the current proposed wording. This will provide for a two year transition period during which the UK will have pretty much the same rights and obligations as they currently do.
It will also include some waffle about the EU’s intention strike a uniquely special trade deal (in so far as this is possible with the UK’s redlines).
This will be presented (a) to the leavers in the UK parliament as “take it or no Brexit”, and (b) to remainers in parliament as “take it or no withdrawal agreement”. Nobody will care what the DUP think.
Then one of two things will happen.
(a) Either the Parliament will reject it, the government will fall, a general election will be announced, and the UK will ask nicely for an extension to the Article 50 period to allow the election be held. What the election will be fought on will depend on the public mood, but you’d hope some hard questions about where the fuck all of this is heading might be asked; or
(b) And I believe this is more likely, parliament will accept the deal.
If the deal is accepted, in early April, the UK will sit down as a third country, with seasoned EU trade negotiators to negotiate the first of their wonderful Global Britain Trade deals. They will initially request a unicorns and fairies Canada+++ deal based on imagination and good will from all sides. They will not be in a position to threaten to withhold future payments. They will not be in a position to threaten to partition Ireland.
They will be eviscerated.
No other country will enter into trade negotiations with them until their future relationship with Europe is clear.
And the clock will be ticking towards the end of the transition period in 2021, after which, you guessed it, the Treaties will cease to apply.
Once the UK population finally realise that absolutely nothing that is on the table is anywhere close to as good as their current arrangement
(surely the penny has to drop before the end of 2019) I see at least three possible outcomes (presented in order of least likely to most likely):
(a) The public will direct their anger towards the politicians who brought them to this point and demand that EU accession talks begin immediately;
(b) The public agree that the best they can hope for is (i) a Canada style deal which would disastrous for integrated supply chains and their services industry, or (ii) a Norway style deal which would be humiliating, expensive, and they’d still have to deal with those slightly brown people who talk funny; or
The Breixteers in England are still (although perhaps slightly less than before) wittering on about ‘absurd’ and ‘silly’ notions that UK aircraft could be grounded, or truck drivers prevented from driving on the continent, or animal products stopped at EU borders. Like Poacher above, they assume that because it ‘makes sense’ to keep things as they are in these areas, it will magically happen, even with no deal. But as the EU patiently and repeatedly point out, all these things require a legal framework, outside of which the UK has chosen to place itself. And in the absence of new arrangements which replace existing legal agreements, there are certain ineluctable consequences.
I think driving licenses are actually an area that will be somewhat insulated from disruption. It’s governed by a UN agreement, to which all EU countries are signatories. The EU driving license format only smooths the process within the UN agreement so the UK exiting the EU won’t nullify the original UN agreement. A UK license will still have been issued by the national authority of a signatory to the UN agreement, therefore it is valid in other countries that are signatories. The most that can be required is that you obtain an IDP to go with it. I’ve had to do this to drive in other countries outside the EU and it is a relatively painless process. Just fill in a short form and send it together with a photo, a copy of your license, and €15, to the AA in Dublin and you’ll get an IDP back in the post a few days later. Then you’re good to go for a year. The same for insurance. The green card system has existed since before the EU and covers more countries than the EU. There’s nothing to stop UK insurers, or indeed insurers from other countries, offering UK drivers green card coverage to drive in other parts of Europe, within the EU or outside it.
There are many major areas for potentially catastrophic disruption but I think the driving abroad one is way overplayed.
Part of me thinks that the British public won’t truly understand how interdependent they are after four decades of economic integration with the EU until they see unmistakable effects on their shelves. I won’t be surprised if this thing goes right to the brink. It would be foolish for use to not prepare for a hard Brexit.
Absolutely, and I think the reason is the differing legal systems - the UK and part of the Irish system are principles based to a degree with a common sense element underpinning (man on the Clapham omnibus). This has precedent. The European (and rest of the world, largely) have rules based systems. They cannot turn a blind eye to something that doesn’t make sense. Equally, you’re far less likely to get off (e.g. corporate manslaughter is more vigorously pursued because that’s what the law says you should do). Neither is ideal and I’m not sure you can mix them. I believe that Ireland has a mix - some inherited from the UK, some transposed from Europe. I may be wrong on all of this, but that’s my gut feeling.
The Brexiters are myopic about the consequences because it’d never happen in England that a silly law would get in the way of going about your daily business. Why can’t Europe be more like England!
Back on the legal topic, ‘common law’ was the phrase I was grasping for above. And it appears we are still fully common law, so there you go. Let the loopholes abound. Anyway, I’ve never been more pro and agreement than I was after reading this and seeing the picture… rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/091 … al-system/
It is to be sure EvilG - Yer marvellous!
Praise from Yogi?
Theres no higher accolade on The Pin y’know.
(Except getting banned. At least I’d imagine so. Its never happend to me. Obviously.)
Glad to see youve caught up with one of the real issues, Yogi.
Youre really coming along!
What’ll Europe do without the Brits listening systems, though?
Theres another clump for your pipe…
Gas crack the whole Brexit thing, isnt it?
Sure I was laughing me arse of this morning when the BBC led with Carneys “35% house price drop”.
Honest to God I was snotting into the auld Ready Brek!
Jaysus didnt the whole thing take off on the auld Social Media and by lunch time they’d figured that 75% of the country thought it was a good idea.
There were remainers, millenials, pensioners, transgenders, londoners… the whole shower was starting to ‘get it’.
Even Kamel Ahed (or whoever did the Carney interview and article) had to backtrack on Twitter.
I swear to God but the whole thing vanished from the BBC website soon after.
You’d swear the fuckwits at the BBC/BoE were so detatched from reality that they thought this was a bad thing.
And there - for those who doubt - is the vast, vast gap between the the governing and the goverened in England.
If I were in Ireland, and I were exposed to the UK economy (thats you everyone!), I’d be realising that a bad deal for the UK is going to make 2008 look like a picnic.
**Time to cut the bravado and start supporting the UK in return for a (term defined) UK subsidised UI.
Hmm, so what you’re all telling me is that my prediction that the UK would after Brexit be, “5% poorer and 10% happier” is going to be a bit wide of the mark ?
Meanwhile Sweden (Yes Sweden !) is lurching to the right. And the EU fails to adequately address the wave of sub-Saharan Africans as it struggles to square it’s instinctive but toxic empathy with the reality that it has to look after its own citizens first. But migration is just a dripping tap - commentators here and elsewhere can happily label it as hysteria until the sink overflows. And admittedly Britain is the EU country that had widespread riots and looting in recent years.
What I’m saying is that middle England may just stick with their initial decision to unhook themselves from Crazy Merkel’s toxic empathy. If I was Theresa May I’d be doubling down on a push to the right on issues like migration.
I always see the Brexiteers referred to in this thread as ‘English’ but it’s easy to forget that the Welsh voted to leave as did large numbers of both Scotland and NI.
This seems to be very much a UK decision.
It’s also worth remembering that much of the “home” counties voted remain.
This is very much a vote based on the demographic make up of the population, those who benefited most from the “free market” voted remain, while those who were largely ignored by the elite and were losing out due to the “race to the bottom” voted leave.
If the referendum was about allowing immigration (both form EU & non EU), the results would have been similar, as in no to further immigration.
I think it would have a been wider No to immigration. They thought they were voting against Muslim immigration but they’re going to get more from the commonwealth. They’re only marginally reducing it by stopping Merkel’s whims.
And if Brexit goes wrong you have a good chance to see race riots / pogroms in North of England. England has a recent history of rioting and a long history of religious pogroms. There is effectively apartheid going on in places like Bradford. And the kind of people in the indigenous community who might do it would be delighted to get payback for the sexual abuse and grooming scandals. That won’t be forgotten quickly.