A possible essay plan on Brexit or maybe just some notes

I hesitate to put this on my blog because of all the swearing. You will definitely need to switch the subtitles on to follow what is said. It's intention is to make you laugh but I think that the first part is also fairly accurate as a basis for a summary of the current situation and a Brexit essay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaBQfSAVt0s

Brexit – what has happened so far and how should the question now be handled?

Introduction

You could start with a reference to a recent statement about Brexit by one of the parties as a point of departure. What does Brexit mean?/ a short summary of what happened with the referendum, the date, result, relatively big turnout (72% but stronger among older people), narrow victory, regional and age variations/ Article 50, date invoked/current deadline to finish negotiations, approve a deal and leave.

Line of argument (good luck finding one!!!): This essay will argue that the current situation is more unclear than ever, with no decisive majority in the UK Parliament or among UK voters for anything. So both the UK and EU will probably play for time and extend the deadline in the hope that a clear majority and way forward will emerge so that the damage of a no-deal hard Brexit can be avoided.

Factors that determined the result – the effects of globalization and the economic crisis, fears about jobs and salaries/ and about immigrants/resurgent nationalism/ EU's perceived 'democratic deficit' and desire to regain control of policy and full political sovereignty/ many voters may not have fully understood the consequences of what they were voting for/ fake news about migrants and false figures and expectations about the economic advantages of leaving used by some Brexiteers to boost the Leave vote and the failure of the Remain campaigners to expose these tactics and provide accurate figures and explain convincingly the benefits of staying in the EU.

There were then a series of issues to to negotiate between 2016 and 2018 to reach a deal between the UK and the EU on Brexit. Both sides agreed that it was important to reach a fair settlement and avoid a 'hard Brexit' (without a deal) because of the economic costs to both sides. Their nothing will be agreed until everything is agreed' approach may have been a mistake.

The EU's priorities for negotiations were

a) the future status of current EU residents in UK (and vice versa) after Brexit (their legal and social rights, residence, work, health care, pensions etc..)

b) the divorce bill, what Britain would have to pay in lieu of future contributions (explain what it covers)

c) the Republic of Ireland-Northern Ireland border question. Avoiding a hard border between the two and a danger of a return to the 'troubles' as well as a major disruption of trade between them.

d) and long term, the key issue is trade ( 53% of the UK's imports come from EU, which is 8% of EU exports, while 44% of the UK's exports go to EU). Various trade models were discussed, Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Turkey, if nothing else WTO rules, compare and contrast, see below#/ so in the end there was real difficulty in negotiating a complex, special deal in the time available.

e) a transition period to help companies get used to the new arrangements and resolve any unexpected problems or problems requiring more time to resolve. Such as

f) future travel arrangements for work and tourism / clarity on the effects on other policy areas, e.g. security cooperation and defence.

So what does the UK want? Basically, the softest possible Brexit on trade, free movement of goods and services but not of people /a separate political and legal system/to maintain good relations and close trade relations with the EU.

After a long negotiation process Prime Minister May's government agreed a deal with the EU (Nov 2018) but the deal was voted down in Westminster by a massive majority. It was criticised for being unclear and leaving too much to be decided in the future. Hard-line Brexiteers did not like the 'backstop' agreement on Northern Ireland, the continued role of the European Court of Justice in some cases, some of the trade restrictions and the £39bn divorce bill. Moderate Brexiteers and Remainers thought the deal was bad for trade and jobs and even the May government was forced to recognise the costs to the economy in the next 15 years. See below§

What are the options now? (as of 03/03/19)

1. accept a slightly modified version of the deal
2. revoke the UK's notification of intention to withdraw under Article 50 (but would this be seen as undemocratic?)
3. vote against a no-deal, hard Brexit and postpone leaving (extend the deadline) to gain time for more negotiations with the EU (which says there is nothing more to negotiate but is willing to grant a postponement to avoid a hard Brexit) and between the parties in Westminster.
4. vote against a no-deal, hard Brexit and postpone leaving and have another referendum now that the costs of leaving are clearer, or another general election in which Brexit would be the key issue.
5. Leave with a no-deal, hard Brexit on March 29th and accept the massive costs to the UK economy and serious costs for the EU too.

Conclusion: (Good luck with this too !!!) Basically the UK would like to have nearly all the advantages of being in the EU without any of the disadvantages. However, the EU can not be expected to abandon its basic principles to reach a deal. Above all, the EU can not abandon the backstop (a kind of customs barrier across the Irish Sea, leaving Northern Ireland in the EU customs area with the Republic of Ireland) without giving up the reality of its customs union which must, by definition, have an external border somewhere.

Are there any lessons we can learn from Brexit? Here are some ideas:

A government should not call a referendum without being sure the voters really understand the effects of their decision.

The dangers of fake news, populism and unrealistic expectations about the possibilities available through negotiations.

Perhaps a referendum on an important issue should require a two thirds majority, not just 50%.

Perhaps it would have been better to see what kind of a deal was possible before invoking Article 50 (or even before the referendum).

Should the UK government resign and invite the formation of a 'caretaker' cross-party government?

Other questions to consider :

The need for economic stability and market confidence/ the importance of a deal to both parties for future relations/the importance of goodwill, cooperation and compromise where possible to achieve a good outcome for both parties

the effects on the UK /of a no-deal, hard Brexit/damage to the economy/ does withdrawal weaken it internationally? /will it lead to or accelerate a break-up of the UK? /will it remain a close EU ally?

The effects on the EU /of a no-deal, hard Brexit/ damage to the economy/ possible spillover effect on the spread of nationalism and Euroscepticism in other EU member states or an opportunity for greater unity?/the EU defence system

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZ0xISi40E

# The UK seems to want

a) to reach a comprehensive deal with the EU and not be left without one and thus the WTO rules on trade which would mean EU tariffs

b) to have tariff-free trade with EU member states but to be able to place limits on immigration from the EU

so not EU membership and not the Swiss model (EFTA) and not the Norwegian model (EEA)

c) to have tariff-free trade with EU member states without sharing the EU's external tariffs system

so not the Turkish model

d) not to share the EU's external tariffs system and to have broad tariiff-free trade with EU member states which includes financial and related professional services (12% of the UK's GDP)

so not the limited Canadian model either (and again not the Turkish model)

e) So, given its level of trade with the UK, is the EU willing to give the special deal it has offered the UK these features when it comes to agreeing the details? Can it renegotiate any part of a deal that all the 27 members have already accepted?

§Cost of leaving according to the UK government's own figures:

• May's deal would cut UK GDP by up to 3.9% over 15 years, according to official government analysis.
• A no deal Brexit could cut UK GDP by up to 9.3%
• A Canada-style free trade deal would leave GDP about 6.7% lower than if Britain had remained.
• A Norway-style soft Brexit would not have a negative impact on the economy.
• Moreover, the real impact of May's Brexit deal could be larger than the analysis suggests, as it assumes the UK would roll over all existing EU trade deals with third countries and successfully strike new free trade deals with at least 17 other countries.

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-uk-government-admits-brexit-will-inevitably-leave-britain-poorer-2018-11?IR=T