Stuart Nathan
Features editor
In post-Brexit Britain (or Brexiting Britain if you prefer) one of the many challenges we’re now facing is the sheer complexity of leaving the EU.
I wrote yesterday that Brexit is like pulling a bramble out of a shrubbery – it’s even worse than that. I’m put in mind of Prince Charming trying to hack through the thorns that had enveloped the castle of Sleeping Beauty during her century-long snooze.
I’m not even going to get into how complicated it will be to negotiate a new trade deal with the European Union, let alone the 53 other international markets, but even the matter of triggering our exit from the EU isn’t simple. I’ll try to explain why, and I hope readers will forgive the departure from purely engineering matters. I urge readers to do their own research on this: I am not a lawyer, and neither is anyone else who works on The Engineer. This is what I have gleaned from reading over the past few days.
We’ve all heard of Article 50 by now – it’s the mechanism in the Lisbon Treaty for a country to leave, and it fires the starting-gun on a two-year process for the exiting nation to negotiate a settlement with the rest of the bloc. That two years is fixed, by the way: it can only be extended by the unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers, excluding the ministers from the exiting country. If there’s no deal when it expires, the leaving country has no deal; will have to trade according to WTO rules, which are much less favourable than the terms we currently enjoy; and if, for example, the EU owes us money, we wouldn’t get it back.
The rules by which Article 50 is invoked are set out – it has to be invoked according to the constitution of the exiting state. It’s often said that the UK has no constitution, or at least no written one, but this isn’t true. What we don’t have, unlike very many other countries, is a single document called ‘The Constitution’. Instead, our constitution is spread through many statutes, clauses of statutes and so on, accreted over the centuries. A statute, for those who don’t know, is a written law. This is why the job of a constitutional lawyer is so much harder in the UK than elsewhere: they don’t just have to interpret the constitution; they have to find the damn thing too.
But the way we invoke Article 50 (or activate it, or trigger it; nobody even agrees on the terminology) is clear: it has to be done through ‘The Queen in Parliament’, which is how we do things in the UK. Let’s be clear that this can’t be avoided: if Article 50 isn’t invoked, we don’t leave the EU. This is important; the important word is ‘Parliament’, and the reason it’s important is that it isn’t ‘government’. You’ll notice used the word ‘important’ three times. That’s because it’s really important.
This decision can be taken by passing an Act of Parliament; in this case it would probably be one to repeal the 1972 Act that took us into the EEC, as it was then called. This isn’t instead of invoking Article 50; this is how we invoke Article 50. That means a debate and a vote of MPs, which itself presents a problem: the vote can’t be along party lines, because the main parties’ policies were both to stay in the EU. Even if it’s a free vote, where the MPs vote according to their own opinions, it doesn’t work, because very many MPs (including my own) hold personal opinions that are at odds with those of their constituents. And even once this is sorted out, the act has to go through parliamentary committees, the House of Lords (with all the lack of democratic accountability that implies), and back to the Commons. Neither quick nor easy.
There’s another option called Royal Prerogative. Despite the name, in practical terms it doesn’t involve the Queen. It’s a series of powers that are wielded by the prime minister which used to belong to the monarch but were gradually devolved as the principle of parliamentary supremacy became entrenched. As I understand it, Parliament could empower the PM to trigger Article 50 by a vote. But there’s another problem: by long-established precedent, Royal Prerogative can’t take away rights granted by Parliament (this is the sort of thing we fought a civil war over). Some of those rights include working in any EU member state, and being able to stand for the European Parliament and vote in European elections. The paradox is obvious.
The problem is that the referendum had no constitutional power. The UK typically decides things in Parliament, not by referendums; as a result, it just doesn’t have the mechanisms to put referendum decisions into practice. Effectively the referendum was just a very comprehensive opinion poll with a self-selected sample size of 33.6 million. Countries where referendums are more common arrange them very differently from the way ours was, and inconveniently differently from each other too: some require a ‘supermajority’ of over 50 per cent to make constitutional changes; and Australia, for example, will only accept the result of a referendum if all of the states agree on the outcome. It should be obvious that last week’s referendum fails on both counts. But re-running the same referendum on different rules sounds like an affront to democracy and would almost certainly be seen as such by the Leave campaigners and voters.
In the meantime, it’s incumbent on practical people like engineers to try to find ways through the situation and find ways to ensure the UK and its population prospers. As our readers will know, virtually all the industry bodies and a very large majority of companies were pro-Remain, and we rounded up some of their responses last week. One of the few big industry bosses in favour of Brexit, Lord Bamford of JCB, said: “European markets are important to many UK businesses, including JCB, and this will not change. We should look ahead to opportunities to trade more freely with the rest of the world, as well as building on existing trading relationships with customers and suppliers in Europe.”
Meanwhile the picture in other sectors is not looking disastrous. Adam McGiveron, a partner with legal firm Shakespeare Martineau, which represents clients in the advanced manufacturing sector, commented on Friday: “Despite huge volatility on the stock and currency markets, we have not seen immediate disruption to deals, and those that were due to complete today are still completing.” However, he added a note of warning: “Political and economic uncertainty is seriously detrimental to medium and long term investment plans. Our clients have been disappointed by the level of political debate before the referendum and we call on politicians now to turn the debate to a grown up discussion about our trading relations with the rest of the world.”
As it happens, this morning The Engineer’s editor, Jon Excell, is attending a summit on the future of the automotive industry, Britain’s biggest manufacturing exporter and one of its biggest employers of engineers. The summit is being held by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, and was scheduled before the referendum was held.
Through the awesome speed of modern communication networks, Jon tells me that the tone of the event so far is that the manufacturers expect (and will no doubt request) that the UK continues to trade freely with the rest of Europe, and will also allow European engineers with the appropriate skills to work in the UK, so our skills gap will be no more of an issue than it was before we voted to leave the EU (that is to say, an urgent problem which requires a strategy to address it, but at least we would be able to recruit people).
Eric Jonnaert, head of the European motor industry body the ACEA, said that he didn’t expect the situation to affect sales of UK vehicles. SMMT chief executive Mike Hawes commented: “our industry is deeply integrated in Europe, it’s the single most important relationship we have,” and encouragingly, both Johan Van Zyl of Toyota and Adrian Hallmark of Jaguar Land Rover have talked positively about continued investment in skills and technology, the opportunities presented by developing low-carbon vehicle technologies and more efficient manufacturing processes.
According to Jon, nobody at the event is even prepared to speculate about what happens if Europe does not consent to tariff-free markets and free movement of qualified people. But as our politicians have all mentioned this as a plank of post-Brexit discussions and, as Lord Bamford has said, trade with the UK is important to the rest of Europe too, we must hope this comes to pass in whatever settlement we achieve – assuming, as we must, that we are to leave the Union.
Thanks Stuart for adding some clarity to the process.
Maybe now the European Parliament will start to listen?
Who to, Nigel Farage??
Stuart;
Thanks for this cogent and very welcome assessment of the problems that lie ahead in the UK. It is timely as I am asked for my opinion many times a day and I have had to ‘beg-off’ for now as the implications have not been clear, unit now.
I think a lot of MPs will vote to invoke Article 50, but only when the terms of leaving are set, and – hopefully – when access to the single market is agreed by the EU.
However, the EU has said we can’t negotiate until Article 50 is invoked. So one of those will have to give.
In that case, I assume the next conference will be in Frankfurt.
A lot of “Goverment negotiation” is done by Civil Servants. I’m sure that while ministers are currently slagging each other off, that they will be at the very least be getting an idea of boundaries and limitations within the forthcoming meetings. Then the PM, whever he or she is will claim victory in a 10 day summit.
Gentlemen, please realize this is a non-binding referendum which Parliament can over-ride tomorrow and end all this stupidity. Remember for years every country has an appointed and not elected representatives in the EU Parliament. This has to be changed immediately, to fully elected representatives for each member nation and not faceless Bureaucrats whom are really unknown.
The entire community has slowly come together but has been hindered by Bureaucracy of Brussels and no one in the UK Parliament has ever really sat down to change anything concerning, trade, immigration, monetary policies, Wall St/Stock Market enforcement in trading etc. or how to deal with World Trade.
Also consider the fact that some one in Parliament denied the 16-17 year old’s the right to vote in the referendum, what is there real future. Now hanging in the balance and unknown by denying them a say in their future? I have several family members who could not vote and are planning to leave the UK for New Zealand or Australia and they are very bright and computer/engineering savvy- what a loss to the UK and EU as a whole.
Let Parliament overturn the results and put a coalition of good people together to redo the EU Parliamentary method of representation and equality of membership. That I lay down as a challenge so the young people have a real future in what the EU was originally intended for.
I’m European. I couldn’t vote either. But then, all of this was known before the vote. And of the young folks 18-25 only a quarter even bothered to vote. For England there is still the commonwealth to go to, Nigeria, Kenya, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Wales, Scotland, etc. billions of people, a HUGE market, lots of opportunities. And not so stagnant as the EU.
What an unholy mess, article 50 was supposedly never going to be required and hence was vague to say the least. What a total cop out by ALL concerned, I would have thought BEFORE you buy into something due diligence would require you know how to get out of it apparently not! I suspect the EU will continue to trade with us, at what price who knows, free movement of people is another ‘can of worms’ but to think our own democratic processes cause us this many problems gives me grave cause for concern at the ability of our civil servants? who lets face it manage to manipulate everything to suit the status quo. I voted leave as the chemical industry, of which I am part seems to be suffering dreadfully under EU power (legislation).
Thank you for an enlightening explanation. Pity that no-one gave us this beforehand, it may have cut out the protest vote against the Government and other uninformed quasi-patriotic objections.
Our national lack of foresight on the outcome must give other countries globally pause for thought in any future negotiations of any sort.
Fortunately , today, one duck has fallen off the firing range as Boris has ‘been withdrawn’ and if Jeremy can’t even run a referendum even with the support of the PM, how would he cope in power?
Stuart,
Thanks for detailing the process of Brexit… getting to that stage was not easy.,there were a lot of Red Flags going up and the due process of Parliament is necessary (thank goodness).
Europe sells a lot more to us than we sell to them (£ 60b last year): who has the better bargaining position in that sort of situation??
Armagedden has not happened so far, in fact nothing has changed as yet, apart from the weather and England’s football team of course.
If the government does not invoke Article 50 democracy is threatened.
Wish I thought that we had better negotiators than our civil service!
If anyone thinks we will be tariff free when trying to deal with the EU once Article 50 is invoked then I would suggest they belong in Cuckoo land
Agree. There is no free lunch. UK is only a tenth of the market of the EU. Norway and Switzerland have to agree to free movement in return for free market access. And they still have to pay into the European Structure Development Fund.
Since the EU isn’t some nameless and faceless thing in Brussels but a club of people, representing countries that pay and have to agree to rules, it is very unlikely that they will agree to terms that put a non-paying non-member on better terms than them.
But then, who needs the EU. There is still the whole wide world – Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Libya, South Rhodesia, Falklands, etc. they all just wait to trade freely with Little England.
We have a lot of political manoeuvring ahead of us, on both sides of the Channel. Considering the desire of companies to maintain free trade, this BBC article about options makes interesting reading. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36639261
As an Engineer I am used to dealing with the facts of the laws of physics, and indeed rejoice in the fact that what is inconvenient in one respect, gives enormous opportunities in others. Friction in a bearing is a power sapping inconvenience, however motive power would be impossible without it. We should consider the opportunities and inconvenience of Brexit in the same way. I am appalled that in an organ for what I would expect to be straight thinking and logical people we have anyone who is muddled enough to suggest that we can or should devise or enable some means of ignoring or overturning the Referendum results. What we have here is not something akin to where the weasel words of lawyers can find a loophole in a Statute Law, but something nearer to an application of Common Law, where an even handed judge would consider what the spirit of the law would logically say. In short the Brexit decision was a clear statement of the will of the people, clear and unequivocal, not subject to interpretation, in short rather similar to the laws of physics, Inconvenient perhaps, but somewhat clear. The bitter, or disappointed losers who are in denial of the facts ignore one thing. Our current Parliamentary system was set up in a manner in which it was intended and assumed that it would be able to ensure that the will of the people was not ignored or circumvented by a power not accountable to the people. It was set up to ensure democracy and it was not anticipated that it could or would be used to circumvent democracy would be used to frustrate democracy. It is democracy itself which has both defined us a a civilized country, and has in the main kept us from civil disturbance for a period probably longer than in any other country on earth. The only way to maintain that stability is for the will of the people to be recognized and then acted upon. Lack of democracy is what has lead to our Brexit vote, as the EU has been deliberately constructed to frustrate the inconvenient aspects of democracy. The people have used their one and only opportunity to re establish democratic control, in voting for the UK Parliament to one again be supreme, giving them an opportunity to change their representatives once every five years, and hence to ensure that their representatives cannot stray too far from the democratic will of the people. If the Referendum results had been to remain, it is very clear that it would have been accepted, and thus the converse must also apply. Failure to follow the will of the people would undoubtedly eventually create the same condition as led to the English Civil War, The French Revolution and the Russian Revolution. You cannot create a pressure vessel situation without a very sudden and dramatic destructive explosion. Democracy has relieved the pressure, but circumvention of democracy will create it. The politicians have already or will soon all recognise this and Brexit will happen. How quickly the process is seen to take to begin will define the ongoing level of stability within the country, and also the level of confidence in the markets.
The current situation in the Labour Party where the MP’s dislike the choice of its membership is an example of the overall disrespect for democracy. Watch that space !
As Engineers we deal in solid facts, make decisions based on logic and careful reasoned argument. Unfortunately democracy does not require any of this and relies on opinion often generated with sparce and inaccurate information, protest votes and tabliod opinionated misdirection.
We have screwed up!
A tiny majority in a poorly presented argument on the EU have ensured the future employment of an army of bureaucrats who will I am sure work tirelessly to sort this mess out. But at what cost to the UK.
Without seeking opinion let alone majority a number of self-serving politicians in slow but deliberate steps took us far beyond what we had agreed and would ever have agreed to because the EU “project” provides a very good income for failed or has been politicians and their families. How rich would the Kinnock clan be without the EU ? A vote to remain would have guaranteed that we continue to fund a monolithic empire of paper shufflers who are so very skilled at it that in 21 years they have been unable to have the accounts signed off. If you have a business, just see how long you can stay out of prison if you were trading in that manner.
The claim that the EU accounts have never been signed off is, like so many things said about the EU, not true. Here, the BBC’s fact checking unit explains the reality of the situation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36276175
I have to agree with Barrie Mansel-Edwards, any attempt to manipulate the system politically by the current parliament will no doubt result in them losing the next election and them we have the fear of a minority party with no political experience being voted in. I have no doubts about the complexity of the negotiations required to exit the EU or to negotiate new international agreements, but I believe that Britain will leave and that other European nations in due course will follow, but Britain will have the advantage of negotiating new international deals with other continents first without additional competition from these other countries.
Yes, China is already waiting. Just don’t bring up the tea trade. They might remember the opium wars.
This was all known before the vote and experts were preaching it every day. Now the people have spoken, let the people handle it. The people know best. I’ll continue day to day business.
You quote Adam McGiveron as saying “we call on politicians now to turn the debate to a grown up discussion about our trading relations with the rest of the world”. Well, Cameron has put icing on his unnecessary referendum cake by resigning, and the Labour Part is leaderless, whatever the current incumbent might claim. So there’s going to be no grown up discussions in Parliament until those minor, parochial issues are sorted. And a strong contender for replacing Cameron is Boris Johnson, who I don’t expect to decide that the referendum result is only indicative and can be ignored, despite his claim that trade and free movement of labour can continue as before, the latter definitely not being what a goodly proportion of the Leave voters expect. So, the immediate future is rosy, the medium future dire and the long term is, as ever, in the lap of the gods, which means that, for us, it’s business as usual, managing as best we can despite the politicians.
Perhaps we can have an expensive referendum to assess whether or not the Referendum was “necessary”. Personally I do not think it was necessary. I think it was absolutely essential.
As an engineer I look for solutions to the problems I come across. If the rules of game change, I find another way, and the measure of my quality is how good the new path is. As an engineer, I exist in a state of change. Sometimes by choice, sometimes enforced on me, but standing still is a no-no, as another engineer will always come along with a better solution eventually.
So why should Brexit be any different? It shouldn’t be feared, as change offers a wealth of opportunity for those willing to embrace it.
So how do we capitalise (as a country) in this new environment? My own view is that as a developed country we cannot compete in mass manufacturing with the developing world. But we have great strengths on which to build, and Brexit could just be the impetus we need to rise again. We speak the world’s language, have a business friendly attitude, strong links to every continent, some of the best universities, highly respected engineers, and more.
We could aim to become the manufacturing R&D centre of the world. Yes, this is going to require immigration, but they will be highly skilled, so objections will be small. We could use the freedom and flexibility we will gain from Brexit to set tax rates and policies to brain drain the world in pursuit of this aim, encouraging companies involved in mass manufacturing to headquarter here. The workshops that this would necessitate would require an awful lot of employment for skilled (British/Foreign) and semi-skilled (trained up British) workers. Best of all, this is the environment which will be hit last by the upcoming automation role out, as capital investment of automated equipment does not make sense other than to demonstrate at this stage. All that equipment needs maintaining too, so even more semi-skilled jobs.
Just as we did with the industrial revolution, we could steal a march on the world before the next ‘revolution’ everyone thinks is coming sets in.
Lets stop whining, roll up our sleeves, and do it.
Being the mother of two twenty something girls, I found myself fitting the stereotype uncertainty of those in the middle generation not having enough information to make my decision. Whilst my head was telling me to vote leave my heart was drawn to that resulting in the unwanted legacy of the younger ones and a responsibility was felt to remain. Carefully I scoured the news, listening to opinions of the politicians, financial advisors and the ream of other subject specialists, and right up until the day of the 23rd June I was still uncertain of my vote. As such I turned to the pragmatic common sense of my fellow engineers who, just like the others, expressed opinions in both camps, but with clarity of justification and reason that sometimes only engineers can have, that crosses financial stability, race and nationality. I don’t need to indicate which way I voted, it doesn’t matter, democracy won. Thank you colleagues, for as usual providing clarity; and as Jake so aptly points out, the decision has been made, we have identified our route, lets have the courage of our convictions and make it work, for every generation…..
Perhaps appropriate to remind fellow Engineers that it was the launch by the USSR of Sputnik (1957) -the first orbiting satellite, [ just about the time I was doing ‘O’ levels] that the USA realised that there was a single group in that society who could alone take-on and combat the obvious advance and advantages that the then Soviet Union had achieved. It was Engineers and Engineering. Their ‘status’ rocketed (pardon my pun!) and was only eclipsed again in the 90s.
I take on board Jake’s view that Brexit is an opportunity: but is the leadership we have in Parliament and elsewhere able to see such: and recognise again the only group who can place us back where we belong? Frankly, I doubt it.
I think that for most people the vote for “Leave” was more emotional than analytical. As a consequence, there is a fair amount of fudging possibility. The question for me is how much “leave” is necessary to quell a riot, should voters feel cheated. Given that we intend to continue with trade, movement of labour etc., etc. this seems a complex opportunity to reset our EU agreements yet still appear Out, as far as necessary to satisfy the emotions.