In June 2016 a referendum was held in the UK with the question: Does the population want the UK to remain part of the EU, or does the population want us to leave the EU.In this referendum, the “departure” (Leave) movement has been nipped, after which the UK government has initiated the withdrawal procedure (Article 50) on 29 March 2017. The UK has indicated that it will leave the EU within 2 years. This is called Brexit.
After this decision, negotiations have begun between the EU and the UK, which are exactly what the conditions for retirement are.
The EU is a so-called open Federation, where countries can make agreements at various levels, whether this can be done as a single entity (the EU).
Within the EU, among other things, agreements have been made on the border, where goods and people within the EU are allowed to cross the border without restrictions (unless there is reason for it).As a result, the EU operates as a single country, while still being separate countries.
Through Brexit, the EU is stepping out of the Treaties in which the EU acts as a single entity and must revise these treaties (agreements).
Politicians from the “Leave” camp have always maintained their supporters that the UK has a strong negotiating position when it comes out of the EU, that they would be better off.However, the EU adheres to the formal exit process, the article 50 procedure. There are very few advantages for the UK and a lot of headache files.
This is not a majority in the English Parliament for agreeing to the conditions that are now on the table.
If there is no agreement in the English Parliament, the EU does not grant a postponement and the UK does not withdraw from the article 50 procedure, the UK is no longer part of the EU on 29 March 2019, without any new treaties being drafted.This must be dropped back on other treaties, which will cause headaches to both the UK and the EU side.
In Short, now, January 2019, the (legal) relationship between the UK and EU is clear because the UK is part of the EU.
If an agreement is concluded before 29 March 2019, the legal relationship remains clear.However, if no agreement is concluded, the legal relationship between the EU and the UK is unclear, as it is necessary to return to the set of legal rules that may differ for other countries, and these rules vary by country and even by domain. Should we see the UK legally as the US, or as Norway, or sometimes as US and sometimes as Norway, and when do we apply what rules?
It is completely understandable that this completely ignores the normal citizen in the EU (and therefore also in the UK).
I know this because I am involved in a small part of Brexit, London is the financial capital of Europe and many international parties where we do business with it operate under a legal UK entity.As a result, contracts with these parties should be reviewed, with many choosing to set up a legal EU entity (think of a private company, E.G.).
Only in this process will it be clear how much misunderstanding there is actually about the EU (what is an open federation exactly, how do countries relate to each other, how does the governing of the Federation work and what is the position of countries in relation to the Federation, how can a citizen exert influence on the federation), and why citizens simply cannot understand the EU/Brexit issue without a pretty deep knowledge.This has dropped politically conscious and unconscious stitches. Conscious, because then you can always blame the EU, unconsciously, because you are so close to the matter that you cannot imagine that people do not understand it.
This is the essence of the Brexit issue.
Ai, perhaps in simple words, but it is not so much a complicated problem, as it is a problem with many people who play a role from very different interests.So it remains quite difficult to untangle that knot.
The call on Brexit arose because the people of Great Britain were told by some of their own politicians that an important part of their dissatisfaction with the way they were governed was caused by the fact that Britain is a member of the EU. I leave in the middle whether that is true or not.The fact is that people like Boris Johnson and that other figure, Nigel Farage, have kept all sorts of sunny horizons to the British, if they were to be off the EU. They did so, for example, by putting the payments to the EU in a big picture and not mentioning the proceeds such as subsidies to disadvantaged areas and agriculture. And 52% of the British vote voted in their referendum for Brexit, the EU’s resignation.
And now the situation is as follows.There is a procedure for withdrawal from the EU. If no further arrangements are made, the provisions thereof shall be followed. That’s the no-deal Brexit. Then all sorts of costs will be settled (going to be a huge state) and British from one day to another no more inhabitants of the EU and therefore no longer subject to the corresponding rules and benefits. Conversely, EU citizens and businesses lose their EU rights in GB. These negotiations and the concept agreement that May had reached the intention to regulate the consequences of Brexit as much as possible, that it would be acceptable to both parties. This includes, for instance, a transitional period in which the British and the EU can adapt their laws and regulations so that traffic (persons, goods and information) are less affected by the separation. Furthermore, there is, of course, the fact that every benefit and the least possible disadvantage of the unbundling is possible. It is also just a lot of money and jobs.
It has been a hussar piece to get the 27 other EU countries on a single denominator, because their interests in relation to Britain are quite different.The one wants to trade above all, the other wants access to the labour market for its inhabitants a third is out on the financial position of London. Still succeeded. But if you are going to be fumble, there is a chance that the entire structure collapses. So the EU is not keen on this. On the other hand, a rushed departure from the United Kingdom is also extremely unfavorable for countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium. So the EU also has an interest in good transitional arrangements (a deal).
Why have those English parliamentarians voted against the agreement?Because the number of opponents was greater than the number of proponents. Simple. But now the tricky piece. Those opponents consist of a monster Covenant of Commons members who find the divorce not far enough and not fast enough to go and parliamentarians who do not want Brexit at all.
Both Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson, conservative, are on the job of Theresa May as prime minister.Corbyn hopes to force a crisis with the Conservative Party, to force new elections, and Johnson hopes to be able to push may as a leader of the Conservatives. Both of them have an interest in the policy of May as failing to stamp.
May was opposed to a Brexit because she knows that it is damaging to the position of Britain.But she is prime minister in favour of the fact that the Conservative Party has remained the largest in the last two elections and as prime Minister she must implement the referendum. So she has to do better in doing something that she is not behind at all, and she must also do so that it is credible to the British electorate.
An impossible task and I do not believe that any of the other protagonists in this drama could have been better.Certainly not that Boris Johnson, who likes to put up the fire, but does not give home when it is to be extinguished. He then also took his rushes in no time when he had been a foreign minister for a while.
Result of all this is already a cost of hundreds of millions for the EU and Great Britain for all sorts of relocations of companies and institutions, much more cost in the coming years for unbundling, and annually many millions to the limits .
On a global scale, it also reduces the EU’s economic position towards the US, China and Russia, while Britain remains a second-class power.I do not mean denigrating, but France, Germany, Japan and Great Britain are in international politics of less weight than the really big boys.
What in the long run the economic consequences are, is only to guess.In General, the less trade restrictions, the greater the economic growth.
What I can still add is the following:
The biggest headache issue with Brexit is the Irish issue.
In The Good Friday Agreement, which was the end of the Nordic “Troubles”, it was established that there should never be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
That condition could, and could be, only if the UK (and thus also Northern Ireland) was a member of the EU.
At the moment the UK steps out of the EU, in any way whatsoever, the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is an EU external border, and there is a little lock on it, as at every EU external border.
You can solve this with a “backstop”, where there is a “border” between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, but the DUP (the Norwegian Unionists party) does not want to.And let that be the Doog partner of the Tories, who do not have a majority in the Commons…
Brexit is not going through!Read on for this.
There is an agreement BETWEEN the UK AND the EU on Brexit. This is due to the fact that the British government has lodged an application for the withdrawal of the EU, which is effective on 29 March under the Law on retirement (Article 50 of the EU Treaty).
By the way, it is not a ‘ deal ‘ in the sense of the ‘ deals ‘ that Trump is talking about, but about an agreement between the EU and the UK.
In the meantime, the British Parliament does not agree with the government -negotiated agreement on exit.That is not strange, a government cannot act without having a majority in Parliament for that action.The EU has made it clear that the UK’s withdrawal is only possible with this agreement or without agreement.The fact that the UK leaves the EU without agreement is always an option because it is based on the UK’s sovereignty .
The withdrawal with an agreement ultimately depends on Ireland.Ireland has indicated in the course of negotiations with the EU that it will be vetoing any agreement between the UK and the EU that constitutes a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. This right of veto is part of the EU Treaty which the UK has recognised with its accession to the EU.
Now the British Parliament has also stipulated a hard Brexit vote.After the rejection of the agreement with the EU by Parliament, hard Brexit is indeed the only remaining option for the British government to do justice to the outcome of the referendum.
Now it looks like the hard Brexit is not getting a majority in the British Parliament either.In this case, the government can only choose to remain IN the EU.Indeed, a government cannot act against Parliament’s will. The result of the referendum is only an Act directive for the government controlled by Parliament.Parliament is not bound by the outcome of the referendum.
In rejecting the governmental proposal for a hard Brexit, the government is therefore forced to formally withdraw the withdrawal request from the EU.Other solutions do not exist, even from the EU.
A second referendum, for example, on the negotiated agreement with the EU is not possible.This is because the preparations for this referendum take longer than the elections to the EU Parliament in May. The British would then have a legal right to vote for the EU Parliament, to exercise neither a government can deny its citizens or the EU the British.
Ergo, Brexit is not going through, when the hard Brexit is also rejected by Parliament.The government is forced to withdraw the request for withdrawal from the EU.
Incidentally, exit without agreement would make the UK an international pariah.The Treaty of retirement also regulates the EU’s progress in the UK during membership. This is about EUR 40 billion. This includes, among other things, the continued payments for EU civil servants who have worked for the UK during British membership. Failure to pay for this claim means that this amount will be borne by the remaining EU countries. The anger of the EU citizens towards the UK will be unmatchless. Furthermore, no country in the world will ever conclude a trade treaty with the UK under these circumstances, unless it benefits exceptionally. It is also inconceivable that under these circumstances the EU will ever conclude a trade treaty with the UK. As mentioned, the UK is at a no-deal Direct an international pariah.
British politics in general
British politics have always been dysfunctional.While the Scottish Parlament is fairly profesional, the British Commons is more like a monkey cage in a zoo. The Parlamentsleden often do not know what they are voting for. See We need to change the Rules so MPs know what they’re voting on
There is still something to do with Brexit.Both parties are very split on the subject. Many Parlamentsleden are also split themselves because their conscience zech something, their interest to be re-elected says something else, the party interest says something deerdes.
If there were such a situation in the Netherlands, the two sides would have been split up in a pro-EU Labour and an anti-EU Labour long ago, and the same with the Conservatives.But that cannot happen in VK because the germination system is so arranged that the largest party almost certainly wins. There is at present a broad progressive majority in the electorate, but nevertheless a Conservative majority in the Parlament, because small progresive parties (Green, LibDem) cut votes from Labour without having to get seats themselves.
For the modal MP, the national interest is therefore undergeschickt.The most particular thing is to prevent the party from being broken down.
Deal of No Deal?
The “deal” was agreed with the EU by the PM.500 pages of legal details but it comes down to the fact that Brexit is actually delayed. Officially, VK would resign at the end of March, but the first year and a half would happen and then they will see. One of the piquant parts of the agreement is that there is a Northern Irish “backstop” which would allow Northern Ireland to remain in the customs union if no other solution could be found to guarantee the open border with Ireland.
The “deal” is a compromise that no one is to of. Brexiters want to get out of the EU quickly and completely, while remainers do not want to be in a path that is meant to leave the EU more or less in practice.It therefore does not come through the Commons so far, while it could well be that a one-on-one vote of “deal” versus whichever-alternative-would then also lead to the fact of going through the deal.
The chicken game is a game where two car riders drive against each other and the one that deviates, to prevent the collision, has lost.That is appropriate here: Brexiters may hope that the EU will come across the UK with more favourable agreements to prevent the “no Deal” disaster. Remainers may hope that the moderate Brexiters will eventually turn against Brexit for the same reason. Whether that is really so is hard to say. Who knows what is in the head of a British politician?
Theressa May and other conservatives
After the referendum some of the moderate conservatives left, while others shifted to the backseat.What remains of the party is a Gekken house. Theressa May appointed Johnson and Davis, two incredibly incompetent politicians, to top positions because she wanted Brexiters to take responsibility for Brexit. That has led to nothing, so in the end, May has taken over the wheel and made an eleventh-hour appointment with Brussels.
May is seen as an extremely poor campaignster and a moderate leader without visions.However, she is also seen as the least bad option. Everyone in the party is afraid that if they were to be replaced, a Brexit extremist leader would be elected and too many party members would run away. The Brexit extremists who are trying to turn it off are therefore probably just for the show. Hardly anyone wants to be serious about it.
Corbyn seems to be an EU skeptic but is in favour of many of the EU’s social dimensions. He probably prefers some kind of soft Brexit, perhaps resembling the situation of Norway.Or rather still the advantages of Norwegen without the disadvantages. That might be a bit unclear and/or unrealistic.
The senior members of the party are usually very opposed to Corbyn.He is seen as a bad leader (can not compromise), left to win the government power ever, to Lau MBT EU and too soft against antisemitism. Yet Labour does not come from him. He has won repetitive leadership with great margin. He is just very popular among the grass roots, especially the youth.
British politicians are extremely attached to their party.You should never support anyone from the enemy party. If you are a Labour MP at a given point with the Conservatives, or the other way around, try to involve your hearth in your cognitive resonance to adjust your mind and otherwise you will love your mouth. You see the same thing in other Anglo-Saxon countries. It will have to do with the class consciousness and the district system.
In the present situation, it is not an option to formulate a common Labour/Cons policy In the EU area.The Conservatives have no room majority and the government is therefore based on support from the Northern Irish DUP, an extreme right-wing party. The situation is therefore unstable. When VK leaves the EU, there are tens of thousands of laws that need to be adapted because of the new situation. This is going to be very difficult in a situation where the government has no majority and the opposite (like British oppositions always are) is very obstructive. It would not be a future Labour government, because Labour under Corbyn cannot be left in the internal.
I can compare the current situation with when the Danish referendum rejected the Maastricht tractate.Then the largest anti-Maastricht party was invited to negotiate a compromise. This ultimately leads to a compromise that was made by EC and also by all the pro-Maastricht parties and thus the largest anti-Maastricht party, which was finally approved in a second referendum.
You don’t see anything like this in the UK. The Conservatives try to find a compromise internally (at least, Theressa May tries it).That almost all non-conservatives will vote against is just normal.
At the moment nothing happens, which is the worst scenario. That you don’t understand it is normal, no one understands it.Including the politicians.
The EU is a cooperation between cooperating countries.What you are saying together is that you should do it naturally.The British feel that as a pressure from the outside, really do what you have agreed together.
So there is nothing to do with them, because then they don’t want it anymore.
Doing what your own (self-elected) leaders have agreed to find them undemocratic, because ‘ imposed ‘.
In view of the history of the UK as an old sound democracy, it can be seen at least as particularly noteworthy.Or just stupid or stupid.
An englse answer:
Malky Mcewan’S answer to What is Brexit?Why is it so important? What will its impact be on world economy?