Analysis - Chance of smooth Brexit fades after British election chaos

[webfact]

Analysis - Chance of smooth Brexit fades after British election chaos

By Alastair Macdonald

 

EU and Union flags fly above Parliament Square in London, Britain March 25, 2017. REUTERS/Peter Nicholls/Files

 

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Theresa May's insistence on starting Brexit negotiations next Monday is questioned by Britons who think the prime minister's calamitous election setback means she should now seek to stay in the EU single market.

 

However, in the year since Britain voted to leave the European Union, the other 27 EU states have hardened their common position and narrowed British options for avoiding a "hard Brexit".

 

The following scenarios touch on what may happen now voters have dashed May's hopes for a bigger majority to negotiate and left her dependent on pro-Brexit Ulster Protestants and on political rivals reportedly eyeing their moment to oust her.

 

1. HARD, SMOOTH BREXIT

May, a former supporter of EU membership, filed for divorce in March, meaning Britain would leave the single market and customs union and end EU court oversight, EU budget payments and free migration from the EU to Britain.

 

After a transition period, May wants an EU-UK free trade pact.

 

Under Article 50 of the EU treaty, Britain will no longer be a member on March 30, 2019, whether or not the two sides agree a deal to avoid leaving businesses and citizens in a legal limbo.

 

The EU priority is "damage control" by limiting the economic disruption and saving the Union. That would curb discord and any further breakaways by showing Britain was no better off out.

 

EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has instructions to seek a deal that preserves the rights of 3 million EU citizens in Britain, recovers money owed by London (possibly $65 billion) and limits any damage to Irish peace from a "hard" EU-UK land border.

If "significant progress" is made on that, EU leaders may then open talks on a transition to a free trade agreement.

 

In this ideal scenario for Brussels, the outline divorce is set by the end of this year, agreed in full by late 2018 and ratified by lawmakers by March 2019.

 

There would then be several years of transition to a new treaty, even deeper than a trade pact with Canada, plus close cooperation on security and science.

 

BUT...Brussels hoped May would win a big majority to help her sell compromises needed for this scenario. Some EU officials now doubt she can remain in power if she accepts too many European demands.

 

2. HARD BREXIT WITH NO DEAL

May has said "no deal is better than a bad deal".

 

BUT...EU leaders think she is bluffing because no deal would spell economic and legal chaos. Yet EU officials have grown increasingly worried that both sides may box themselves in, with little time left.

 

Before the election, May and her ministers said they would not pay the EU billions on leaving and want trade talks now. Barnier, meanwhile, cannot stray from his mandate without a new, unanimous agreement of the 27.

 

While neither side of the negotiations wants potentially chaotic limbo, a breakdown could leave both with a messy and unpopular last-minute fix.

 

3. NO BREXIT

A year ago, 48 percent of Britons voted to stay in the EU, including most lawmakers from the main parties, most Scots and most in Northern Ireland. Some still cling to the hope of the Brexit process being reversed.

 

BUT...That hope seems forlorn now that both big British parties now accept Brexit, as does Brussels.

 

First, Britain would need a new government which wants to stop it. Neither a Conservative party coup against May nor a left-wing coalition led by Jeremy Corbyn's Labour, possibly after a new election, seems likely to deliver that.

 

Second, it would have to overturn a British legal opinion that the request to leave under Article 50 cannot be revoked.

 

Third, it would need the EU to agree, most likely by unanimous vote of all 27. And it might mean taking time for another British referendum.

 

Formally, EU leaders insist they would rather Britain not leave. But the prevailing view in private is that the Union is safer without a big member that has always been lukewarm on the project and is now so divided as to be unreliable.

 

4. LATE BREXIT

Political chaos in Britain has prompted calls for more time to negotiate, possibly on different terms from those May has sought. Article 50 allows for an extension to the two-year deadline if the other states unanimously agree.

 

BUT...EU leaders will hesitate to open a divisive issue among them and want Britain out before European Parliament elections in May 2019. The two-year deadline is designed to weaken the leavers' hand.

 

5. ENGLISH BREXIT

Scotland's government wants a special deal to stay in the single market or, if not, to secede and stay in or rejoin the EU.

 

Ireland's EU commissioner has espoused the idea of keeping Northern Ireland in the EU customs union. May's unionist allies in the province also want to avoid a hard border.

 

BUT...On Scotland, May and the EU doubt a "differentiated deal" on trade and migration can work, while Spain, battling Catalan separatists, may block it. Electoral losses for the Scottish nationalists have also weakened their hand to threaten a new independence vote.

 

On Ireland, such a scenario appears hugely complicated without raising some form of trade barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. That would be anathema to the hardline Protestant DUP.

 

6. SOFT BREXIT

This could be the key battleground in the coming months.

 

Many Brexit opponents suggest that, if it goes ahead, Britain should at least stay in the single market for the sake of jobs and trade.

 

BUT...While EU leaders do not rule that out, they have set tough conditions similar to those imposed on Norway, which can access EU markets in return for cash contributions, taking EU migrants as well as refugees and observing rules overseen by EU courts.

Such terms are far from what Brexit supporters want and also rob Britain of its big say on EU policy.

 

And Europeans, as well as May, rule out "cherry picking" deals that give Britain access to certain EU markets, like banking. EU leaders say that would risk undermining the whole single market.

 

British proponents of soft Brexit say the EU, especially big exporters to Britain, could be persuaded. But the bloc seems for now committed to not breaking ranks. So talks on "soft Brexit" could be a waste of time.

 

In October, EU summit chair Donald Tusk said: "The only real alternative to a 'hard Brexit' is 'no Brexit'." Pushing soft Brexit over hard is seen increasing the risk of replacing a smooth Brexit with rough.

 

(Editing by Mike Collett-White)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-06-12

[pitrevie]

Its all going so well this end, shambles.

[YetAnother]

what a huge, grade A mess

[bkkcanuck8]

Listening to both the DUP (Irish Party propping up the Conservative government) leader and the Scottish Conservative leader I get the feeling that both are very soft Brexiters -- with the Scottish contingent more calling for status-quo or basically the same as it is now but without European Parliamentary representation.... Which gives me the feeling that hard Brexit is on deaths door and they will end up with sort of the same deal they have now.... but without a voice in the European government....  

 

If the election was truly called because too many closet europeans were making the process unruly ... it is pretty well unmanageable ....  

 

But then executing article 50 then deciding to take a time-out to have an election while the clock was running was asinine at best, negligence at worse.... And now the UK faces the real possibility of going to the polls as the clock ticks out.

 

Then you hear about possibly Boris Johnson making a run for the leadership.... and he was one of the ones that made a beeline for the door just after the "the win".... which seemed like a person who really did not believe in what he pushed and was trying to get away from it as fast as he could.

 

Amazing....

Edited June 12, 2017 by bkkcanuck8

[darksidedog]

Summing it up then, no one has any idea whatsoever about how this is going to end up, or what we are likely to be able to walk away with.

I got to hand it to May, I thought disasters of such magnitude were supposed to come from another incompetent, across the pond.

[phantomfiddler]

Just get on with it and get out !

[Baerboxer]

"Second, it would have to overturn a British legal opinion that the request to leave under Article 50 cannot be revoked."

 

Reuters fail to reference this statement. 

 

The man who drafted Article 50, who is British, says it can be repealed. What's more, he says the country that triggered it can repeal it at anytime in the 2 year negotiation period.

 

Might not be polite and obviously the 27 others would be pissed at being messed about. But that's his opinion and he wrote it.

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, darksidedog said:

Summing it up then, no one has any idea whatsoever about how this is going to end up, or what we are likely to be able to walk away with.

I got to hand it to May, I thought disasters of such magnitude were supposed to come from another incompetent, across the pond.

 

May couldn't even describe  what a good deal would be like; it's elements and shape. She simply has no idea and neither did her seemingly 2 all powerful advisers who presumably told her it would be a good idea to have an election (perhaps she misheard the l for an r!). They've resigned so she has no one advising her now and clearly has no idea without someone else scripting it.

 

That's why she avoided any pre-election TV debates.

 

 

[Jonnapat]

Thank you Ms May for creating a " coalition of chaos ". Typical right wing arrogance and complacency.

The worst is yet to come for the British economy, particularly with such incompetents in charge of Brexit negotiations. Even after a year they still haven't got a clue as to what they've doing

[Khun Han]

2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

May couldn't even describe  what a good deal would be like; it's elements and shape. She simply has no idea and neither did her seemingly 2 all powerful advisers who presumably told her it would be a good idea to have an election (perhaps she misheard the l for an r!). They've resigned so she has no one advising her now and clearly has no idea without someone else scripting it.

 

That's why she avoided any pre-election TV debates.

 

 

 

The Tory election campaign stinks of something not nice. May is an adequate orator, as shown in PM's question time. Somebody deliberately derailed the Tories' election campaign, and I'm still trying to work out who. It took a major effort to lose the lead they had at the start of the campaign, against opposition which was in disarray and was carrying a top team that even struggled to do the most basic maths.

[Baerboxer]

10 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

The Tory election campaign stinks of something not nice. May is an adequate orator, as shown in PM's question time. Somebody deliberately derailed the Tories' election campaign, and I'm still trying to work out who. It took a major effort to lose the lead they had at the start of the campaign, against opposition which was in disarray and was carrying a top team that even struggled to do the most basic maths.

 

PM question time has her surrounded by ministers and MPs should she need help. Also the focus is on the day to day, not in explaining visions and strategies to the electorate.

May seemingly had created a rift between herself and her cabinet who complain decisions must now be more inclusive so presumably they thought they weren't before, So maybe she didn't get the support she thought she would.

 

But calling an early snap election, deciding on her personal contributions and how she would campaign are down to her. Someone wrote that it was almost like she and her advisers looked at Hilary Clinton's campaign and said - let's do that, the same. She believed the polls and took it all for granted.

 

 

Edited June 12, 2017 by Baerboxer

[Khun Han]

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

PM question time has her surrounded by ministers and MPs should she need help. Also the focus is on the day to day, not in explaining visions and strategies to the electorate.

May seemingly had created a rift between herself and her cabinet who complain decisions must now be more inclusive so presumably they thought they weren't before, So maybe she didn't get the support she thought she would.

 

But calling an early snap election, deciding on her personal contributions and how she would campaign are down to her.

 

 

 

I disagree with you about PM's questions, but largely agree with the rest of your post, except that she was badly (and most probably maliciosly) advised on the election campaign. Which shows weakness on her part, so I kind-of agree with you on that too.

[Baerboxer]

Just now, Khun Han said:

 

I disagree with you about PM's questions, but largely agree with the rest of your post, except that she was badly (and most probably maliciosly) advised on the election campaign. Which shows weakness on her part, so I kind-of agree with you on that too.

 

If, and that's always a big word, the reports are correct, then her own 2 advisers were the only 2 whose counsel she really listened to. They were with her at the Home Office too.

 

No evidence yet of any malicious intent. Seems like they got it wrong, horrendously wrong.

[vogie]

1 minute ago, Khun Han said:

 

I disagree with you about PM's questions, but largely agree with the rest of your post, except that she was badly (and most probably maliciosly) advised on the election campaign. Which shows weakness on her part, so I kind-of agree with you on that too.

KH, which part of the election campaign do you mean, if you are refering to the manifesto, surely she would have read it first, if me or you had read, I'm sure we would have come to the same conclusion that it was suicide. As for the TV debates she should have had the nous to see that by not attending the debates was not going to do her corner any good. I'm still not too sure whether brexit played a part in her catastrophic mishandling of her campaign, the book must stop with her.

[Khun Han]

2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

If, and that's always a big word, the reports are correct, then her own 2 advisers were the only 2 whose counsel she really listened to. They were with her at the Home Office too.

 

No evidence yet of any malicious intent. Seems like they got it wrong, horrendously wrong.

 

Possibly. But it was obvious at least a month ago that this was speeding toward a car crash. That's why I find it so hard to believe that it was just incompetence. If it was, it's my opinion that May would have been toast the day after the election. I'm leaning toward the opinion that she was played, and is still being played.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Khun Han said:

 

Possibly. But it was obvious at least a month ago that this was speeding toward a car crash. That's why I find it so hard to believe that it was just incompetence. If it was, it's my opinion that May would have been toast the day after the election. I'm leaning toward the opinion that she was played, and is still being played.

By whom? Tories eager to be out of power?

[Baerboxer]

Just now, Khun Han said:

 

Possibly. But it was obvious at least a month ago that this was speeding toward a car crash. That's why I find it so hard to believe that it was just incompetence. If it was, it's my opinion that May would have been toast the day after the election. I'm leaning toward the opinion that she was played, and is still being played.

 

Don't know about the run up to the election. She's being used for sure now and will be kept in the PM role until they decide it's convenient to have a new leadership contest. Once that happens, I doubt she'll even be a Minister.

 

I read that the cabinet and party grandees were spitting nails as the results were coming through - and only blaming one person.

[Khun Han]

1 minute ago, vogie said:

KH, which part of the election campaign do you mean, if you are refering to the manifesto, surely she would have read it first, if me or you had read, I'm sure we would have come to the same conclusion that it was suicide. As for the TV debates she should have had the nous to see that by not attending the debates was not going to do her corner any good. I'm still not too sure whether brexit played a part in her catastrophic mishandling of her campaign, the book must stop with her.

 

Vogie, there were so many schoolboy errors in the Tory campaign that they don't add up to schoolboys playing at being politicians. It's simply impossible to make sense of them in that light.

[Khun Han]

4 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Don't know about the run up to the election. She's being used for sure now and will be kept in the PM role until they decide it's convenient to have a new leadership contest. Once that happens, I doubt she'll even be a Minister.

 

I read that the cabinet and party grandees were spitting nails as the results were coming through - and only blaming one person.

 

Again, I agree. But I suspect the 'spitting nails' was PR.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Vogie, there were so many schoolboy errors in the Tory campaign that they don't add up to schoolboys playing at being politicians. It's simply impossible to make sense of them in that light.

Not really, They made the same mistake that Republicans in the US made. They believed that their electorate supported the dismantling of the welfare state just as they did.

[pitrevie]

13 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

If, and that's always a big word, the reports are correct, then her own 2 advisers were the only 2 whose counsel she really listened to. They were with her at the Home Office too.

 

No evidence yet of any malicious intent. Seems like they got it wrong, horrendously wrong.

No need to look for any complex reason Occam's razor explains it all. You only have to look at some of the comments on here. The only Brexit strategy is OUT, nothing else matters its as simple as that. Since the referendum nobody has explained the Brexit strategy beyond OUT, or as Ken Clarke put it we disappear down a rabbit hole and reappear in wonderland.

[pegman]

4 hours ago, darksidedog said:

Summing it up then, no one has any idea whatsoever about how this is going to end up, or what we are likely to be able to walk away with.

I got to hand it to May, I thought disasters of such magnitude were supposed to come from another incompetent, across the pond.

Wrong, the other EU leaders know perfectly well what's in store. It's a good portion of the English public that are clueless about the inevitable. The real reason May went for a new mandate was to push back the date of the next election knowing full well the pain to come. 

[Khun Han]

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

By whom? Tories eager to be out of power?

 

Tories eager to keep their place at the EU trough, with it's assortment of expenses-paid 'goodies'. Belgium: what a splendid place for Leon Brittan to spend his dotage.

[bkkcanuck8]

55 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

"Second, it would have to overturn a British legal opinion that the request to leave under Article 50 cannot be revoked."

 

Reuters fail to reference this statement. 

 

The man who drafted Article 50, who is British, says it can be repealed. What's more, he says the country that triggered it can repeal it at anytime in the 2 year negotiation period.

 

Might not be polite and obviously the 27 others would be pissed at being messed about. But that's his opinion and he wrote it.

The problem after the fact of the "man who drafted Article 50" saying he really meant that this was part of it.... was that he did not write that into the article 50 draft.... it was a one way process where at the end of 2 years without unanimous agreement of all members you were out.  If there was flexibility it would not require unanimous agreement to delay the target date.  Basically, the person (who is likely a EU "remain" supporter) supporter is telling people what he would like it to say now -- not what it actually says it.  It was not a one person operation.  It was written, then that written text was vetted and approved by all members of the EU and in the end it is probably not a judicial decision within the domain of UK courts.

Edited June 12, 2017 by bkkcanuck8

[Khun Han]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Not really, They made the same mistake that Republicans in the US made. They believed that their electorate supported the dismantling of the welfare state just as they did.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that the Tories were not proposing to dismantle the welfare state in their election manifesto, other than their daft, aborted inheritance 'tax', didn't the Republicans win their last election?

[pitrevie]

4 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Tories eager to keep their place at the EU trough, with it's assortment of expenses-paid 'goodies'. Belgium: what a splendid place for Leon Brittan to spend his dotage.

He died two years ago so I don't think he will be spending his dotage anywhere least of all Belgium.

[Baerboxer]

Just now, bkkcanuck8 said:

The problem after the fact of the "man who drafted Article 50" saying he really meant that this was part of it.... was that he did not write that into the article 50 draft.... it was a one way process where at the end of 2 years without unanimous agreement of all members you were out.  If there was flexibility it would not require unanimous agreement to delay the target date.  Basically, the person (who is likely a European) supporter is telling people what he would like it to say now -- not what it actually says it.  It was not a one person operation.  It was written, then that written text was vetted and approved by all members of the EU and in the end it is probably not a judicial decision within the domain of UK courts.

 

Would you like to reference your interpretation.

[JAG]

 
Notwithstanding the fact that the Tories were not proposing to dismantle the welfare state in their election manifesto, other than their daft, aborted inheritance 'tax', didn't the Republicans win their last election?

"Dismantling the welfare state", in this context, means not being prepared to throw eye watering amounts of money at it regardless od effects or benefit. Money that can only be raised by borrowing, because it will not and never could be raised by taxation.

Don't get me wrong, I think that the Tory campaign was pathetic, and the shambles over social care was an epic clusterf*ck, but at no time was dismantling the welfare state on the agenda.

[bkkcanuck8]

9 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Would you like to reference your interpretation.

Quote

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.

There is no mechanism written into the article for reversing course..... (3) is the time limit with a drop dead date and you are out, (5) is that if you want back in you have to have unanimous agreement on re-entry.

If the person "who wrote it" is now saying it says something else.... they should be really embarrassed at their incompetence...

 

Once article 50 was executed within accordance with the UK constitution.... they entered force article 50 in it's entirety.

Edited June 12, 2017 by bkkcanuck8

[Baerboxer]

2 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

There is no mechanism written into the article for reversing course..... 3 is the time limit with a drop dead date and you are out, 3 is that if you want back in you have to have unanimous agreement on re-entry.

If the person "who wrote it" is now saying it says something else.... they should be really embarrassed at their incompetence...

 

There is nothing written into the Article that prevents withdrawing it either. 

 

The time limit in 3 applies if no deal has been agreed, the country wishing to leave does not request extension or all member states do not agree to the extension.

 

Point 5 would apply after leaving should a country leave and then wish to apply to join again. Nothing to do with the period during the 2 years negotiations.

 

You cannot imply something, either way, to suit your political preferences. Nothing specifically about a mechanism for withdrawing the notice but equally nothing prohibiting doing just that.

 

So not only those who drafted it, but also those who accepted and passed it my be embarrassed at the incompetence. Or maybe they just all thought would never happen so not worth bothering about?