So here is how I think Brexit is going to proceed.
We won’t get a deal by the end of March 2019. In fact, we probably won’t even know at that stage what the outline of Brexit will look like. Or, it will be starting to take shape, but the detail won’t be known. I’ve actually got a bet on that, although it’s only pennies.
By that date we will have extended the timeframes associated with Article 50. We won’t be leaving the EU at the end of March 2019. The extension will probably be either two or three years, so that will take us to March 2021 or 22.
After that date there will be a transition period of at least two years. That will give businesses time to adjust to the new status quo. During the transition period, we will remain part of the EU, we will continue to observe the decisions of the ECJ, and we will continue to pay into the EU coffers.
By that stage, no-one will want to talk about Brexit; it will be a taboo subject. It will belong to nerds and specialists.
However, these extended timeframes will give the UK authorities time to set up new regulatory bodies, so for instance whatever we decide will replace the EMA (European Medicines Agency) can be set up and start to function.
As time goes on, the will to execute Brexit will drain away. Especially with the small kerfuffles which will occur from time to time, when people realise what actual impact Brexit will have. This week there has been uproar that cities in the UK have been ruled out of the competition for European Capital of Culture 2023. To my mind, the loss of this title is a trifling matter when we consider what else will need to be changed in the new Brexitopia. Maybe, though, small matters like these are tangible & understandable examples which people can grasp as a sign of what is to come?
For instance, the company I work for is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority in the UK. Because “passporting” will be lost, we will have to choose a country in the EU to have our European Headquarters, and we will have to work with the financial regulator in that country. But the regulator won’t want to talk to a shell company, when the strings are being pulled in London. So we will have to duplicate our legal Counsel team, and our Risk team, and incur costs which would be unnecessary without Brexit. To my mind, that is a more substantial concern than whether a city is called “European Capital of Culture” for a temporary period.
With the extended timeframes given to Brexit, public interest will wane, and it may be that the opportunity will come to revisit the referendum. In my view, the 2016 referendum would have to be nullified by a second referendum. If Parliament voted against Brexit without going back to the people, they would be accused of ignoring “the will of the people”, despite the facts that it was a 52-48 split, and only 37% of the voting public voted for Brexit. So either we have a second referendum, or possibly Labour could stand on a manifesto cancelling Brexit – if they got elected, then they could maybe put a stop to it. I know that Labour’s current stance is pro-Brexit, but I don’t think they are as dedicated to the cause as some of the right-wing free market fundamentalists occupying the Tory backbenches.
Let’s see how it goes, eh? Although the battle which was the referendum was lost, I don’t the war is over just yet.
TTFN.
No comments:
Post a Comment