Can somebody explain Brexit in a few child-proof sentences?












32















I find the whole Brexit thing impenetrably difficult to understand. My main points of confusion:




  1. What exactly does leaving the EU entail? Just writing some letter announcing that EU tariff agreements will no longer be honored?


  2. If voters in the UK chose to leave the EU (years ago?), why have the concrete steps from point 1 not been done?


  3. Does the current prime minister want to leave the EU or not? If yes, what prevents the prime minister from unilaterally disavowing any treaties which constitute the bond with continental Europe?











share|improve this question




















  • 11





    VTC: The 3 point in particular uses language that makes it clear this is just an axe to grind. A somewhat naive axe, as all the answers below take the opposite stance, but and axe nonetheless.

    – Jontia
    19 hours ago






  • 2





    "unilaterally disavowing any treaties which constitute the bond" - how is that child-proof? O_O I'm an adult and I can barely understand that sentence...

    – user22277
    11 hours ago











  • Does this suffice? youtube.com/watch?v=Xm6Id3Qt8Wk

    – zibadawa timmy
    5 hours ago
















32















I find the whole Brexit thing impenetrably difficult to understand. My main points of confusion:




  1. What exactly does leaving the EU entail? Just writing some letter announcing that EU tariff agreements will no longer be honored?


  2. If voters in the UK chose to leave the EU (years ago?), why have the concrete steps from point 1 not been done?


  3. Does the current prime minister want to leave the EU or not? If yes, what prevents the prime minister from unilaterally disavowing any treaties which constitute the bond with continental Europe?











share|improve this question




















  • 11





    VTC: The 3 point in particular uses language that makes it clear this is just an axe to grind. A somewhat naive axe, as all the answers below take the opposite stance, but and axe nonetheless.

    – Jontia
    19 hours ago






  • 2





    "unilaterally disavowing any treaties which constitute the bond" - how is that child-proof? O_O I'm an adult and I can barely understand that sentence...

    – user22277
    11 hours ago











  • Does this suffice? youtube.com/watch?v=Xm6Id3Qt8Wk

    – zibadawa timmy
    5 hours ago














32












32








32


8






I find the whole Brexit thing impenetrably difficult to understand. My main points of confusion:




  1. What exactly does leaving the EU entail? Just writing some letter announcing that EU tariff agreements will no longer be honored?


  2. If voters in the UK chose to leave the EU (years ago?), why have the concrete steps from point 1 not been done?


  3. Does the current prime minister want to leave the EU or not? If yes, what prevents the prime minister from unilaterally disavowing any treaties which constitute the bond with continental Europe?











share|improve this question
















I find the whole Brexit thing impenetrably difficult to understand. My main points of confusion:




  1. What exactly does leaving the EU entail? Just writing some letter announcing that EU tariff agreements will no longer be honored?


  2. If voters in the UK chose to leave the EU (years ago?), why have the concrete steps from point 1 not been done?


  3. Does the current prime minister want to leave the EU or not? If yes, what prevents the prime minister from unilaterally disavowing any treaties which constitute the bond with continental Europe?








brexit






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 16 hours ago









Polygnome

15117




15117










asked yesterday









Tyler DurdenTyler Durden

2,1431536




2,1431536








  • 11





    VTC: The 3 point in particular uses language that makes it clear this is just an axe to grind. A somewhat naive axe, as all the answers below take the opposite stance, but and axe nonetheless.

    – Jontia
    19 hours ago






  • 2





    "unilaterally disavowing any treaties which constitute the bond" - how is that child-proof? O_O I'm an adult and I can barely understand that sentence...

    – user22277
    11 hours ago











  • Does this suffice? youtube.com/watch?v=Xm6Id3Qt8Wk

    – zibadawa timmy
    5 hours ago














  • 11





    VTC: The 3 point in particular uses language that makes it clear this is just an axe to grind. A somewhat naive axe, as all the answers below take the opposite stance, but and axe nonetheless.

    – Jontia
    19 hours ago






  • 2





    "unilaterally disavowing any treaties which constitute the bond" - how is that child-proof? O_O I'm an adult and I can barely understand that sentence...

    – user22277
    11 hours ago











  • Does this suffice? youtube.com/watch?v=Xm6Id3Qt8Wk

    – zibadawa timmy
    5 hours ago








11




11





VTC: The 3 point in particular uses language that makes it clear this is just an axe to grind. A somewhat naive axe, as all the answers below take the opposite stance, but and axe nonetheless.

– Jontia
19 hours ago





VTC: The 3 point in particular uses language that makes it clear this is just an axe to grind. A somewhat naive axe, as all the answers below take the opposite stance, but and axe nonetheless.

– Jontia
19 hours ago




2




2





"unilaterally disavowing any treaties which constitute the bond" - how is that child-proof? O_O I'm an adult and I can barely understand that sentence...

– user22277
11 hours ago





"unilaterally disavowing any treaties which constitute the bond" - how is that child-proof? O_O I'm an adult and I can barely understand that sentence...

– user22277
11 hours ago













Does this suffice? youtube.com/watch?v=Xm6Id3Qt8Wk

– zibadawa timmy
5 hours ago





Does this suffice? youtube.com/watch?v=Xm6Id3Qt8Wk

– zibadawa timmy
5 hours ago










13 Answers
13






active

oldest

votes


















133














The EU is like a club that countries can join. The club has rules, one of which is called Article 50 and was written by a British guy. Article 50 says how countries can leave the club, and that it takes two years during which time they have to negotiate the terms they want to leave on.



A lot of people in Britain like being in the club, and a lot of businesses have come to rely on the benefits of membership like being able to sell their stuff to other club member countries. So to keep them happy the Prime Minister wants to keep some of the benefits of membership. But other people don't like the club and just want out completely, and she wants to make them happy too.



Because it's impossible to keep everyone happy and no-one really thought this through back when the vote happened, it's all become a bit of mess.






share|improve this answer





















  • 16





    +1 This is the only answer that comes closest to addressing all aspects of the question at a level requested in the question.

    – spacetyper
    yesterday






  • 21





    Unfortunately in its attempts to simplify it ignores the main sticking point, which is the ramifications for the Irish land border.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    yesterday






  • 26





    @LightnessRacesinOrbit: I don't think you can ELI5 the Irish land border. At least, not without making the answer three times as long.

    – Kevin
    yesterday






  • 3





    @Kevin Exactly!

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    yesterday






  • 3





    Britain never was a full member of said club.

    – brasofilo
    yesterday



















30














Imagine two teenage siblings who don't want to live with their parents anymore. They hate all the rules they have to follow in their house.




(1) What exactly does leaving the EU entail? Just writing some letter announcing that EU tariff agreements will no longer be honored?




They could just leave the house indeed [hard Brexit]. The youngest sibling just wants this, but the oldest one realizes the risks: no food, no money [the UK strongly depends on trade with the EU].




(2) If voters in the UK chose to leave the EU (what years ago??), why have the concrete steps from (1) not been done?




For the past three years the two siblings have been fighting about their plan: just walk away assuming that kind strangers will provide for them [negotiate new trade deals with other countries], or stay in good terms with the parents and keep their allowance? [accepting some of the EU rules in order to maintain prosperity]




(3) Does the current prime minister want to leave the EU or not? If yes, what prevents the prime minister from unilaterally disavowing whatever harebrained treaties constitute the bond with continental Europe?




To keep with the metaphor, it's as if the prime minister has a double personality disorder: she hears the two teenagers' voices in her head and she keeps trying to satisfy both of them. She fails, because it's impossible.






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    I would say in 2 you actually have three options: Stay with parents (unilaterally revoke article 50 and stay in the EU), leave parents and hope to get by with help from strangers, eg. getting some money for mowing grass or cleaning cars of people they meet (hard leave without any deal) or accept a set of conditions under which parents will keep helping them to some level but they still need to stay in a close contact (signing a deal).

    – Ister
    19 hours ago






  • 6





    Eh, it's more like three or four teenagers, one of whom doesn't want to leave but has to if the other two do.

    – Miller86
    19 hours ago











  • @Miller86 Of course. I thought about it, but for the purpose of the exercise I chose to keep the metaphor as simple as possible. It's meant to be a very simplified version, knowing there are many other answers on politicsSE where more accurate versions can be found.

    – Erwan
    16 hours ago











  • Doublle-personality disorder and teenage angst. Oh, my.

    – Robert Harvey
    15 hours ago



















19














This is really broad, and quite a bit longer than just a sentence or two, but in language a 10 year old might understand:





Oversimplified short version



Liars and frauds told UK voters they'd get fairies and unicorns if the UK exited the EU. Some voters fell for it; others went fishing instead of voting.



Since then, the UK government has delivered the best deal it can get without putting too much stress on the economy, and asked MPs to approve it. But MPs rejected the PM's deal -- twice.



They did so because they think staying an EU member is simply better, or because they really do believe in fairies and unicorns.





Somewhat simplified longer version



Re 1) and 2): Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union lays out rules on how an EU member state can leave the EU. May triggered the process just under 2 years ago.



The UK then began a negotiation with the EU to work out a divorce deal. To come into effect, this deal must get approved by the UK and by the EU. The UK parliament has rejected it twice.



Article 50 also says that there's a deadline of 2 years to work out this divorce deal. This is why there was talk of a no deal Brexit for the past two years. The EU can extend the negotiation period if all of its remaining members agree to it -- which they did at last week's EU summit.



The new important dates are April 12th, by which the UK will crash out without a deal unless parliament passes the divorce deal this week or comes up with a new plan by then; and May 22nd, which is the latest the UK can delay Brexit without participating in EU elections.



Re 3): During the Brexit campaign, May was a late and unenthusiastic Remain backer, for reasons not unlike those of Corbyn -- it was the party line.



Since then, May has embraced the Brexit decision and become a staunch Leaver. She's been standing firm, at times against even her own parliament, to deliver what she understands is what UK voters said they wanted when they voted Brexit: out of the customs union, out of the common market, and out of the ECJ's jurisdiction.



She's on record for not wanting a second referendum, because it's too divisive, and because the risk that voters no longer care about politics is too high. She's also on the record for not wanting any or much of a delay to the Brexit process, because too long a delay might end up meaning new EU elections (a non-starter for a country that's leaving), or even no Brexit at all if things drag on for too long.





Aside



With the above answer in mind, I think there's an underlying assumption in your question that ought to be addressed because you seem to be sold on the notion that the UK can just burn the "harebrained" treaties to the ground and shrug off the consequences. It's not that simple.



Leaving the EU entails hitting the reset button on:




  • The international agreements the UK is involved in through the EU, be them with parties external to the EU (e.g. EU trade deals with Canada or Japan, EU air travel arrangements that allow UK airlines to fly outside of the UK's airspace and foreign airlines to fly inside UK airspace) or internal to the EU (e.g. fishing rights inside EU waters, etc.).


  • Common market-related regulation, ranging from trivial looking matters, as mocked in this Yes, Minister sketch, that aim to make products reasonably comparable across the EU, to more important matters like food standards (e.g. banning chlorinated chicken). The EU goal in most cases here revolves around safety, quality standards, and removing non-tariff trade barriers. The safety standards alone are good enough a reason to inspect anything crossing the UK-EU border in the event of no deal, and that can put supply chains (food, auto parts, etc.) in jeopardy.


  • Freedom of movement of goods, capital, services, and labour, which the EU has made clear again and again are all or nothing. A major side effect of this is the customs union, and what that entails for the Northern Ireland border. Another major one is whether UK-based banks (a significant part of the economy) are allowed to operate in the EU.



What caught the imagination of planners and the media are the future Dover-Calais border-related deadlock, grounded flights, food and medical shortages, and so forth. But these are only aspects of what a No Deal scenario might look like.



Also, there's a slew of much less abstract problems that need a response before the UK formally leaves. To list but a few:




  • UK budgetary commitments to EU projects -- will the UK based projects get funded if the UK refuses to honor its financial commitments?


  • UK officials who retire on an EU pension -- who funds this if the UK refuses to honor its financial commitments?


  • UK students who are studying in the EU, and vice versa -- who pays for their university fees if the current arrangements get cancelled?


  • UK workers living in the EU, and vice versa -- do they still have the right to live and work where they are in the event of a no deal Brexit?


  • UK retirees in Spain and elsewhere -- does the NHS continue to pay for their medical bills, and on what terms?


  • The Northern Irish border -- should the UK respect the Good Friday Agreement or is it ready to risk the resurgence of The Troubles?



These little details add up, and directly affect millions of people. It's not like you can go "screw this" and to hell with the consequences.






share|improve this answer





















  • 14





    The children were supposed to handle 2 sentences, alas they lost interest at some point near the nonetheless in the first sentence.

    – kubanczyk
    yesterday






  • 7





    -1 for the fairies and unicorns. I don't like Brexit either, but that doesn't mean I would support strawman arguments about it.

    – vsz
    yesterday






  • 15





    @vsz: In what world is having your cake and eating it not fairies and unicorns? Until now the UK was in the EU with a whole bunch of opt outs. Now it wants out with an even larger number of opt ins. Speaking as a continental European, I'm disgruntled if anything, about how much the EU has let go to accommodate a wedding partner that never really wanted to be in wedlock to begin with. Also, do continue reading, because you seem to have stopped at the child version.

    – Denis de Bernardy
    yesterday








  • 5





    While I'm a die-hard remainer, this comes off as far too biased.

    – Omegastick
    23 hours ago






  • 1





    @DenisdeBernardy : I'm also anti-Brexit, there is no need for you to try to convince me. But your answer is still biased, and you are still using strawman arguments.

    – vsz
    15 hours ago



















14














The EU is not just about tariffs, it's a whole legal framework. It details what products can be sold and how, how farming and fishing is carried out, how truck and plane companies can operate internationally, who is allowed to live and work in other countries, and so on. This covers a lot of law. (The acquis communitaire).



Businesses outside the EU have to comply with these rules to sell into the EU. People from outside the EU have to comply with the (usually very expensive and time consuming) rules for immigration.



The Brexit proposal was effectively that we could stop complying with the rules we didn't like, without being treated as if we were outside the EU (and all the paperwork that implies). Unsurprisingly this did not go down well.



Two particularly important areas are what happens at Calais: any delay at customs results in the M20 being turned into a lorry park, and any long-term reduction in flow will result in great disruption to UK trade. And what happens across the Irish border: at the moment it runs through houses and farms, and people commute across it. Any checks there will be extremely unpopular and may result in Northern Ireland invoking its right to leave the UK and return to Ireland.



So, in order to leave the EU without chaos, a deal must be made.



However, there is no available deal that has the support of enough MPs in Parliament to actually happen. Hence the current chaos.




what prevents the prime minister from unilaterally disavowing whatever harebrained treaties constitute the bond with continental Europe




"Harebrained" is a stupid condemnation of treaties that have been carefully agreed over decades by hundreds of representatives.



The government's own assessment says that leaving unilaterally will result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs and food and medicine shortages, since full non-EU customs checks will be imposed at Calais and it will no longer be legal for most UK lorry drivers to drive in the EU or vice versa.






share|improve this answer
























  • Good job on calling out the harebrained comment.

    – Jontia
    19 hours ago



















14














Imagine you are a member of the local tennis club.

You can play tennis for free all the time, but you have to follow the rules of the club.



Now you don't like the rules any more, so you decide to quit.



'Hard Exit' means you quit, but obviously you can't play tennis there anymore. You don't like that.

You are asking to quit, but be allowed to still play tennis there, without following the rules. Obviously, the tennis club doesn't agree to that.



Time goes on, and things are not changing. Either you are bound by the rules, or you can't play there. You still don't like either solution. Tick - tock.






share|improve this answer































    11














    I'll try the simplest answers I can as I tried to explain to my 9 year old:




    • Yes. Leaving just means telling the EU we want to leave. To support that, they must believe it was a decision we came to through our normal process of making decisions. Nothing about tariffs or immigration or such - that sort of thing can be worked out separately.


    • The decision was actually closer to 3 years ago. The reasons why we seem to have not actually done it are many and debatable. To summarize: Nobody expected the result and it took a lot of time trying to figure out what to do and how to do it. It's possible some bad decisions were made then at that initial stage and nobody had enough sense, or possibly strength of character, to get that straightened out then. So it's dragged out a bit.


    • The current PM did not initially want to leave. But she is a politician and politicians will often say things to get votes and public support at one point, and then do something completely different later for the exact same reason. I know that's confusing and it confuses (and angers) us voters as well. But that's the way it is and is rarely otherwise. Any breaking of treaties, unless specified in the treaty itself, usually has to have at least some kind of Parliamentary support. In this particular case, that was made the case by both a vote of Parliament and a Supreme Court verdict.



    I know this sounds child-like, but my 9 year old is bright and asks a lot of questions. This is pretty much how I've had to sum things up in a non-biased way (I want her to think for herself on matters like this, not just have my or her mother's views).






    share|improve this answer





















    • 4





      About point 3, I think it's possible that Theresa May started out wanting to stay, but changed her mind after the referendum - "I want to stay but since the majority wants to leave, let's leave".

      – Allure
      yesterday



















    5














    I can't do it in two child-proof sentences, but I'll try to come close.




    1. The EU is a union of 28 states which has been granted some but not all powers of a central government by the member states.

    2. UK voters decided to leave the EU. This is complicated because the EU had so many powers for so long and the UK voters told the UK government to negotiate the details with the remaining EU states.

    3. If the UK government and the remaining EU states cannot agree on the details of leaving, the UK will leave without a deal. That means medical drugs approved in the EU are no longer legal to use in the UK and the other way around, UK citizen cannot travel and work in the EU without a visa and the other way around, UK banks cannot sell products in the EU and the other way around. (There are emergency measures to handle some of this. UK and EU citizens won't be deported March 30th even if there is no deal and no extension.)

    4. When UK voters decided to leave, they had a simple question with a "yes" or "no" answer. Probably most did not want to leave without a deal.

    5. The UK parliament cannot agree on if and how to leave, but they do not want to leave without a deal. The UK parliament has a complicated question with many possible answers, and no answer has a majority for it.


    Eleven sentences, not entirely child-proof, and admittedly biased against the current UK parliament and government.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 6





      "Most but not all UK citizens want to leave" is an extraordinarily misleading and likely factually inaccurate statement, but sure.

      – Carcer
      yesterday






    • 3





      @Carcer, Leave won the vote. Getting the referendum result into a single child-friendly sentence does not allow for many qualifiers, like people who did not show up because they thought everything would be all right, or people who voted because they believed extravagant claims.

      – o.m.
      yesterday






    • 3





      It's probably safer to say "most but not all UK citizens wanted to leave", or even "most people who voted in the referendum 3 years ago wanted to leave". It's very hard to say what they want now, and even harder to say whether they want a deal, what kind of deal, etc, and that's an important part of the current situation.

      – IMSoP
      yesterday











    • @IMSoP, better now?

      – o.m.
      yesterday



















    3














    All the countries in the EU agree to 'four freedoms' of the Single European Market:




    • free movement of goods

    • free movement of capital

    • free movement of people

    • freedom to establish and provide services


    Part of this involves writing EU law into the law of each, individual country (which Brexiteers view as losing national soverignty)



    In return, each country can trade tariff free inside the Single Market, and can trade with non-EU countries under the favourable terms of EU trade deals and can benefit from EU subsidies



    To answer your questions:




    1. Leavng the EU involves invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. After that the UK could just walk away. But it would then have to trade with the EU and other countries under very unfavourable terms. It would cost the UK a huge amount of money and it would take years (the EU/Canada deal took seven years) to negotiate trade deals to replace the EU external deals. The reason Brexit is taking so long is because all but a few extreme leavers want a relationship with the EU that doesn't damage the British economy


    Also, Britain will have an open border with the EU between Ireland and Northern Ireland. If there is no deal and the EU imposes the standard tariffs on goods/visa for people, how will that open border be maintained, taxes collected, visas checked etc? Part of the Good Friday Agreement that lead to the IRA and UDF ceasefires is that there is no hard border between the UK and Eire




    1. Concrete steps have been taken to leave the EU. There is agreement between Theresa May on all these things but there are many different factions in Parliament that want either a slightly different deal or no deal at all. The EU Withdrawal Bill has moved most EU regulation into British Law so that there are no loopholes for criminals and others to exploit after leaving


    2. Theresa May wants to leave the EU under the terms of her deal but she needs this passed into law by Parliament. Most MPs want different deals. Many want to make life easier be retaining some of the four freedoms, and/or joining EFTA and/or staying in the customs union similar to non-EU countries like Norway and Switzerland. Or even not leaving at all



    Currently, British law states that we will leave the EU with no deal. This is viewed as an economic catastrophe by most - too many pages to link to here, just google 'no deal economic catastrophe'






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1





      Can you reference the exact paragraph in the 'Good Friday Agreement' which states that there should be no 'hard border' between the UK & Eire?

      – DrMcCleod
      yesterday











    • @DrMcLeod - There isn't a single paragraph, the requirement for an open border pervades the whole document and is implicit in the wording of most of the statements in the Belfast Agreement

      – Dave Gremlin
      yesterday






    • 1





      @DrMcCleod: law.stackexchange.com/questions/29255/…

      – chirlu
      yesterday






    • 1





      @DaveGremlin Thanks, but I have read the GFA, and I could not see anything in it which specified that an open border between the UK and Eire should exist. If you could indicate the passages or sections that convinced you otherwise, I would be grateful. (Text here: gov.uk/government/publications/the-belfast-agreement)

      – DrMcCleod
      yesterday






    • 1





      The UK and Ireland already have independent immigration policies despite the open border, and both of them opted out of the EU's integrated immigration policy (a.k.a. the Schengen area), so immigration checkpoints and visa checks are unlikely to appear at the Irish border. They haven't existed there since 1923, long before the EU was first conceived. Also Norway and Switzerland are not in the customs union; Switzerland isn't even in the EEA.

      – phoog
      yesterday





















    3














    Many good answers already, but the Irish border is a particular sticking point that is not much addressed in existing answers. I will try to explain the Irish border issue in simple terms (but "a few sentences" is impossible). First some history.



    Partition of Ireland



    The UK has a little brother Ireland. For hundreds of years, the UK was in charge of Ireland (and in fact of a large part of the world, because they had conquered those countries with their powerful army, this is why the US speaks English today). About 100 years ago Ireland declared the independent Republic of Ireland (they had wanted independence much longer). But in Northern Ireland, many people (a bit more than half) felt more British than Irish (because their great-grandparents had (been) moved from Britain, partly to suppress Irish independence) and this part did not become independent. Ireland was, and remains, split. This is called the Partition of Ireland.



    Belfast agreement / Good Friday agreement



    Many Irish people were very unhappy with this, and there was a war. To resolve this war, the UK and the Republic of Ireland agreed to have similar rules. This way, people in all of Ireland could cross between the Republic and Northern Ireland without noticing the border. Both the ones who wanted (nationalists, republicans) and who did not want independence (unionists, loyalists) were OK with that (at least OK enough to mostly stop fighting). They could have very similar rules because they were together in the EU. This agreement is called the Belfast agreement or the Good Friday Agreement.



    Backstop



    Now the UK will (most likely) leave the EU but the Republic of Ireland will not. This means the rules will not be similar anymore, and the border between the two will become more visible. Many people in Ireland, in particular republicans in Northern Ireland, are very unhappy about that. They might cross the border twice a day or even have a farm that exists on both sides. The EU and the republicans wants that Northern Ireland rules stay close to Republic of Ireland rules (so Northern Ireland stays a little in the EU), but the unionists (and many in the UK government) want that Northern Ireland rules stay close to British rules. It is not possible to do both (unless all of UK stays close to EU rules, which is like staying a bit in the EU). The current UK government needs the support from the unionists, so they have to keep them happy. The backstop is a part of the proposed EU-UK temporary agreement (that Parliament rejected) to keep Northern Ireland close to the EU, in case the EU and the UK do not agree a good long term agreement.





    Therefore, for the Irish border question alone, it is impossible for the UK to leave the EU while keeping both nationalists and unionists happy.





    In the above, I have simplified many things. The history of Ireland is a bit more complicated. Many unionists also do not want a hard border in Ireland (there are two major unionist parties which are split on this issue). The main opposition in the UK (the Labour Party) proposes a solution that they claim avoids the need for a backstop, but not all are sure this is accurate. Some Irish republicans believe Brexit may be a chance to undo the partition of Ireland and make Ireland one independent country (the idea is that people are so upset with Brexit that they rather join Ireland and EU than stay in a Brexit UK), but that may be wishful thinking.



    Overall, Brexit is very complicated and cannot be explained in a few child-proof sentences.






    share|improve this answer

































      0














      If it wasn't for the Irish border question the negotiations with EU would have been over long ago and the PM's leave deal would have been adopted. As it is there is no way UK can accept the backstop in the Withdrawal Agreement which will result in UK being tied to EU for ever just to ensure there is never a hard border. When the No Hard Border decision was made at the end of the Troubles no one said then what about if UK wants to leave the EU? The referendum in 2016 didn't say do you want to leave but btw you won't be able to because the Irish border must remain unmanned. Someone though was aware of this when the WA was being drawn up and they made sure there was an unbreakable clause in there to enforce it, without any regard as to how badly it would affect UK,s ambitions to leave.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      portmanteau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.
















      • 2





        This isn't quite right though, there are ways to leave the EU without needing a hard border in Ireland, but Theresa May explicitly ruled them out at the beginning of the process, while mumbling vaguely about "technological solutions". They could have gunned for a more Norway-like option where the UK stays in the customs union or something similar (which many brexiteers actually campaigned on, using Norway and Switzerland as examples of successful non-EU countries), but they ruled that out at the beginning and have made basically zero progress on the Irish issue for the last 2 years since then.

        – Some_Guy
        yesterday








      • 2





        The OP probably has no idea what you're talking about with the backstop and so forth. He's from the US that's why he's asking for elementary explanations.

        – Fizz
        yesterday











      • @Some_Guy Norway is not in the customs union, though it is in the single market. That's why the option of staying in the customs union is called "Norway plus."

        – phoog
        yesterday













      • There were several 'deal breakers' in her bloated deal. The media decided to harp on about the backstop, and that's certainly warranted, but they just as easily have focused on the £39 billion (plus), fishing rights, continued adherence to the EJC. Any one of those sunk this deal. In combination.... well, the two largests defeats in all of British parliamentary history. And maybe the largest of all coming up. But I agree with Fizz, I'm not sure too many people outside of the UK are going really understand any of those topics except maybe the money (and even that's a bit complicated).

        – ouflak
        21 hours ago





















      0














      To succinctly answer your questions (1), (2), (3) (not necessarily in this order):




      • PM May wants out of the EU, but she wants out on the terms of the draft deal she negotiated with the EU... which is lacking support in her own Parliament (but the MPs couldn't decide to replace her as PM either; why that is is an interesting separate issue).


      • May and the UK Parliament did trigger (years ago) all the legal steps needed for the UK to crash out the EU with no deal... in the next couple of weeks (a little vague because extensions to the deadline are possible).


      • A no-deal exit is however not the Brexit that most UK MPs want, according a recent non-binding vote they took, which is basically the only thing they could agree on recently--that is what kind of Brexit they don't want. So basically their hope-for-the-best thinking (triggering article 50, which has a deadline to finish exit negotiations) is coming back to bite them in the sense that they'll (collectively) get their least favorite version of Brexit... by default.



      For more background why no-deal doesn't look good (to most MPs), let me try to explain a few aspects of Brexit. Yes, I'll be oversimplifying by necessity and I'll make [possibly faulty] analogies with the US because the OP hails from there:



      Getting out of the EU just by article 50 (which was triggered by PM May two years ago, following a [non-binding] UK referendum) without any deal is like scrapping most of your trade agreements (big understatement). Even if the EU were just a trade agreement, it's often preferable to change one rather than scrap it. Witness Trump's actions in this respect: he scrapped the non-yet-going TPP, but for most other, NAFTA, etc., he renegotiated them with some but not huge changes.



      The trouble is that there's no consensus in the UK parliament what a replacement deal should look like, even though PM May did hammer a draft deal with the EU. Compare with NAFTA's replacement having trouble in Congress. Trump gave up threatening to just scrap NAFTA. Back to EU, the looming problem is that Article 50's legal two-year deadline to reach a deal means there's an automatic scrap about to happen. A short extension to the Article 50 default-no-deal-deadline has been mutually agreed with the EU, but the EU also got tired of the indecision in the UK parliament as well.



      But the EU is not just a trade deal; in a certain way it, is was also a part of a peace agreement in Northern Ireland. The de-escalation in Northern Ireland (Good Friday Agreement) was largely possible because both the UK and Ireland were part of the EU's single market, so the two countries could make invisible the border that the Northern Irish republicans fought against (the latter because they advocated a union of Northern Ireland with Ireland). So dropping out of the EU is also like scrapping a part of peace deal. Imagine a US state [legally] seceding from the rest of the Union, while a part of secessionist state's population threatens with civil unrest or even domestic terrorism if a border is actually put in place after the secession...



      So the draft deal May agreed to "gave in" to the troublesome guys [Northern Ireland republicans] by allowing Northern Ireland to stay in a customs' union (so no visible border) with the EU until someone can figure out a better solution (so it's a open-ended concession/delay); this is the [in]famous "backstop". But this backstop pissed off the "take back control of our borders" guys from her own party coalition (including a Northern Ireland unionist party--unionist here meaning they want [to stay in] union with the UK--that is actually critical to keeping May's government in power and also to the ratification of a deal). I'm vastly oversimplifying the terms of the draft deal, but you can search here for more questions on the backstop and the intricate details of the customs union it entails; a part of the rules would extend to the whole of UK, another sticking point for some MPs ("take back control of our laws"). The very fact that different rules would apply to Northern Ireland and rest of UK is a red line for the Northern Ireland unionist parties.






      share|improve this answer


























      • Not only the single market, but the customs union.

        – phoog
        yesterday



















      -1














      Here are my two cents:




      1. To leave the EU, which is essentially a complex trade bloc, the UK had to trigger a part of the EU treaty called Article 50. By triggering this article, the UK could leave the EU immediatly, hence no longer being subject to various regulations (but also excluded from the free trade zone), or take time up to 2 years to negotiate an exit deal.


      2. The Brexit referendum was on June 23, 2016. 7 months after the Brexit result (on March 29, 2017), the UK finally triggered article 50, starting the 2 year countdown. In that time Theresa May's government has supposedly been negotiating an exit deal while various agencies and civilian businesses prepared themselves for the exit.



      3. Theresa May finally brought her deal to the Parliament for a vote in January 2019. As it turns out, it was an absolutely horrible deal and the Parliament rejected it by the largest margin EVER for a sitting government's proposal. The main points of concern were:




        • The border with Ireland and Northern Ireland. Ireland is independent and part of the EU, but a hard border would have to be avoided to prevent civil unrest (i.e the Troubles). May's deal would have essentially removed Northen Ireland from the UK.

        • Gibraltar. Gibraltar is a UK protectorate and has been for hundreds of years. However, due to its proximity to Spain it is very connected to Spain culturally. May's deal would have essentially given control of Gibraltar to Spain.

        • EU membership fees. The UK owes fees to the EU totalling £39Billion for 2019. May's deal would have essentially given up all that money (which is HUGE leverage for the UK) with nothing in return in terms of trade concessions.




      So now, almost 3 years after the referendum the UK government is still "figuring thinga out". In my mind that is an utter failure.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      Agustus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





















      • Cyprus is a very good example of what happens when a non-EU country has a dispute with an EU-country. EU is on the side of the member here Greece, which blocks Turkey who really, really wants to be in the EU! UK leaving the EU will essentially mean giving up Gibraltar to please the EU member Spain.

        – Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
        15 hours ago





















      -4














      A hundred years ago, there was a war because some of the countries in Europe wanted to control the other countries. The people who started this war lost, and Britain fought with the side that won.



      Later on, one of the countries which lost the first war tried again and started a second war. They lost that war too, and Britain again fought with the side that won.



      After the second war, people tried to create a system where a third war would be impossible. But other people realized they didn't need to drop bombs and kill people to get control over other countries, so they used that system to set up rules to stop people in other countries buying and selling anything, unless they followed the rules they invented.



      We are now getting close to the end of this third "war" to control Europe, but it's not yet clear who will win it, and who will lose.






      share|improve this answer






















        protected by Philipp yesterday



        Thank you for your interest in this question.
        Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



        Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














        13 Answers
        13






        active

        oldest

        votes








        13 Answers
        13






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        133














        The EU is like a club that countries can join. The club has rules, one of which is called Article 50 and was written by a British guy. Article 50 says how countries can leave the club, and that it takes two years during which time they have to negotiate the terms they want to leave on.



        A lot of people in Britain like being in the club, and a lot of businesses have come to rely on the benefits of membership like being able to sell their stuff to other club member countries. So to keep them happy the Prime Minister wants to keep some of the benefits of membership. But other people don't like the club and just want out completely, and she wants to make them happy too.



        Because it's impossible to keep everyone happy and no-one really thought this through back when the vote happened, it's all become a bit of mess.






        share|improve this answer





















        • 16





          +1 This is the only answer that comes closest to addressing all aspects of the question at a level requested in the question.

          – spacetyper
          yesterday






        • 21





          Unfortunately in its attempts to simplify it ignores the main sticking point, which is the ramifications for the Irish land border.

          – Lightness Races in Orbit
          yesterday






        • 26





          @LightnessRacesinOrbit: I don't think you can ELI5 the Irish land border. At least, not without making the answer three times as long.

          – Kevin
          yesterday






        • 3





          @Kevin Exactly!

          – Lightness Races in Orbit
          yesterday






        • 3





          Britain never was a full member of said club.

          – brasofilo
          yesterday
















        133














        The EU is like a club that countries can join. The club has rules, one of which is called Article 50 and was written by a British guy. Article 50 says how countries can leave the club, and that it takes two years during which time they have to negotiate the terms they want to leave on.



        A lot of people in Britain like being in the club, and a lot of businesses have come to rely on the benefits of membership like being able to sell their stuff to other club member countries. So to keep them happy the Prime Minister wants to keep some of the benefits of membership. But other people don't like the club and just want out completely, and she wants to make them happy too.



        Because it's impossible to keep everyone happy and no-one really thought this through back when the vote happened, it's all become a bit of mess.






        share|improve this answer





















        • 16





          +1 This is the only answer that comes closest to addressing all aspects of the question at a level requested in the question.

          – spacetyper
          yesterday






        • 21





          Unfortunately in its attempts to simplify it ignores the main sticking point, which is the ramifications for the Irish land border.

          – Lightness Races in Orbit
          yesterday






        • 26





          @LightnessRacesinOrbit: I don't think you can ELI5 the Irish land border. At least, not without making the answer three times as long.

          – Kevin
          yesterday






        • 3





          @Kevin Exactly!

          – Lightness Races in Orbit
          yesterday






        • 3





          Britain never was a full member of said club.

          – brasofilo
          yesterday














        133












        133








        133







        The EU is like a club that countries can join. The club has rules, one of which is called Article 50 and was written by a British guy. Article 50 says how countries can leave the club, and that it takes two years during which time they have to negotiate the terms they want to leave on.



        A lot of people in Britain like being in the club, and a lot of businesses have come to rely on the benefits of membership like being able to sell their stuff to other club member countries. So to keep them happy the Prime Minister wants to keep some of the benefits of membership. But other people don't like the club and just want out completely, and she wants to make them happy too.



        Because it's impossible to keep everyone happy and no-one really thought this through back when the vote happened, it's all become a bit of mess.






        share|improve this answer















        The EU is like a club that countries can join. The club has rules, one of which is called Article 50 and was written by a British guy. Article 50 says how countries can leave the club, and that it takes two years during which time they have to negotiate the terms they want to leave on.



        A lot of people in Britain like being in the club, and a lot of businesses have come to rely on the benefits of membership like being able to sell their stuff to other club member countries. So to keep them happy the Prime Minister wants to keep some of the benefits of membership. But other people don't like the club and just want out completely, and she wants to make them happy too.



        Because it's impossible to keep everyone happy and no-one really thought this through back when the vote happened, it's all become a bit of mess.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited yesterday









        ouflak

        1,445613




        1,445613










        answered yesterday









        useruser

        9,41732038




        9,41732038








        • 16





          +1 This is the only answer that comes closest to addressing all aspects of the question at a level requested in the question.

          – spacetyper
          yesterday






        • 21





          Unfortunately in its attempts to simplify it ignores the main sticking point, which is the ramifications for the Irish land border.

          – Lightness Races in Orbit
          yesterday






        • 26





          @LightnessRacesinOrbit: I don't think you can ELI5 the Irish land border. At least, not without making the answer three times as long.

          – Kevin
          yesterday






        • 3





          @Kevin Exactly!

          – Lightness Races in Orbit
          yesterday






        • 3





          Britain never was a full member of said club.

          – brasofilo
          yesterday














        • 16





          +1 This is the only answer that comes closest to addressing all aspects of the question at a level requested in the question.

          – spacetyper
          yesterday






        • 21





          Unfortunately in its attempts to simplify it ignores the main sticking point, which is the ramifications for the Irish land border.

          – Lightness Races in Orbit
          yesterday






        • 26





          @LightnessRacesinOrbit: I don't think you can ELI5 the Irish land border. At least, not without making the answer three times as long.

          – Kevin
          yesterday






        • 3





          @Kevin Exactly!

          – Lightness Races in Orbit
          yesterday






        • 3





          Britain never was a full member of said club.

          – brasofilo
          yesterday








        16




        16





        +1 This is the only answer that comes closest to addressing all aspects of the question at a level requested in the question.

        – spacetyper
        yesterday





        +1 This is the only answer that comes closest to addressing all aspects of the question at a level requested in the question.

        – spacetyper
        yesterday




        21




        21





        Unfortunately in its attempts to simplify it ignores the main sticking point, which is the ramifications for the Irish land border.

        – Lightness Races in Orbit
        yesterday





        Unfortunately in its attempts to simplify it ignores the main sticking point, which is the ramifications for the Irish land border.

        – Lightness Races in Orbit
        yesterday




        26




        26





        @LightnessRacesinOrbit: I don't think you can ELI5 the Irish land border. At least, not without making the answer three times as long.

        – Kevin
        yesterday





        @LightnessRacesinOrbit: I don't think you can ELI5 the Irish land border. At least, not without making the answer three times as long.

        – Kevin
        yesterday




        3




        3





        @Kevin Exactly!

        – Lightness Races in Orbit
        yesterday





        @Kevin Exactly!

        – Lightness Races in Orbit
        yesterday




        3




        3





        Britain never was a full member of said club.

        – brasofilo
        yesterday





        Britain never was a full member of said club.

        – brasofilo
        yesterday











        30














        Imagine two teenage siblings who don't want to live with their parents anymore. They hate all the rules they have to follow in their house.




        (1) What exactly does leaving the EU entail? Just writing some letter announcing that EU tariff agreements will no longer be honored?




        They could just leave the house indeed [hard Brexit]. The youngest sibling just wants this, but the oldest one realizes the risks: no food, no money [the UK strongly depends on trade with the EU].




        (2) If voters in the UK chose to leave the EU (what years ago??), why have the concrete steps from (1) not been done?




        For the past three years the two siblings have been fighting about their plan: just walk away assuming that kind strangers will provide for them [negotiate new trade deals with other countries], or stay in good terms with the parents and keep their allowance? [accepting some of the EU rules in order to maintain prosperity]




        (3) Does the current prime minister want to leave the EU or not? If yes, what prevents the prime minister from unilaterally disavowing whatever harebrained treaties constitute the bond with continental Europe?




        To keep with the metaphor, it's as if the prime minister has a double personality disorder: she hears the two teenagers' voices in her head and she keeps trying to satisfy both of them. She fails, because it's impossible.






        share|improve this answer





















        • 1





          I would say in 2 you actually have three options: Stay with parents (unilaterally revoke article 50 and stay in the EU), leave parents and hope to get by with help from strangers, eg. getting some money for mowing grass or cleaning cars of people they meet (hard leave without any deal) or accept a set of conditions under which parents will keep helping them to some level but they still need to stay in a close contact (signing a deal).

          – Ister
          19 hours ago






        • 6





          Eh, it's more like three or four teenagers, one of whom doesn't want to leave but has to if the other two do.

          – Miller86
          19 hours ago











        • @Miller86 Of course. I thought about it, but for the purpose of the exercise I chose to keep the metaphor as simple as possible. It's meant to be a very simplified version, knowing there are many other answers on politicsSE where more accurate versions can be found.

          – Erwan
          16 hours ago











        • Doublle-personality disorder and teenage angst. Oh, my.

          – Robert Harvey
          15 hours ago
















        30














        Imagine two teenage siblings who don't want to live with their parents anymore. They hate all the rules they have to follow in their house.




        (1) What exactly does leaving the EU entail? Just writing some letter announcing that EU tariff agreements will no longer be honored?




        They could just leave the house indeed [hard Brexit]. The youngest sibling just wants this, but the oldest one realizes the risks: no food, no money [the UK strongly depends on trade with the EU].




        (2) If voters in the UK chose to leave the EU (what years ago??), why have the concrete steps from (1) not been done?




        For the past three years the two siblings have been fighting about their plan: just walk away assuming that kind strangers will provide for them [negotiate new trade deals with other countries], or stay in good terms with the parents and keep their allowance? [accepting some of the EU rules in order to maintain prosperity]




        (3) Does the current prime minister want to leave the EU or not? If yes, what prevents the prime minister from unilaterally disavowing whatever harebrained treaties constitute the bond with continental Europe?




        To keep with the metaphor, it's as if the prime minister has a double personality disorder: she hears the two teenagers' voices in her head and she keeps trying to satisfy both of them. She fails, because it's impossible.






        share|improve this answer





















        • 1





          I would say in 2 you actually have three options: Stay with parents (unilaterally revoke article 50 and stay in the EU), leave parents and hope to get by with help from strangers, eg. getting some money for mowing grass or cleaning cars of people they meet (hard leave without any deal) or accept a set of conditions under which parents will keep helping them to some level but they still need to stay in a close contact (signing a deal).

          – Ister
          19 hours ago






        • 6





          Eh, it's more like three or four teenagers, one of whom doesn't want to leave but has to if the other two do.

          – Miller86
          19 hours ago











        • @Miller86 Of course. I thought about it, but for the purpose of the exercise I chose to keep the metaphor as simple as possible. It's meant to be a very simplified version, knowing there are many other answers on politicsSE where more accurate versions can be found.

          – Erwan
          16 hours ago











        • Doublle-personality disorder and teenage angst. Oh, my.

          – Robert Harvey
          15 hours ago














        30












        30








        30







        Imagine two teenage siblings who don't want to live with their parents anymore. They hate all the rules they have to follow in their house.




        (1) What exactly does leaving the EU entail? Just writing some letter announcing that EU tariff agreements will no longer be honored?




        They could just leave the house indeed [hard Brexit]. The youngest sibling just wants this, but the oldest one realizes the risks: no food, no money [the UK strongly depends on trade with the EU].




        (2) If voters in the UK chose to leave the EU (what years ago??), why have the concrete steps from (1) not been done?




        For the past three years the two siblings have been fighting about their plan: just walk away assuming that kind strangers will provide for them [negotiate new trade deals with other countries], or stay in good terms with the parents and keep their allowance? [accepting some of the EU rules in order to maintain prosperity]




        (3) Does the current prime minister want to leave the EU or not? If yes, what prevents the prime minister from unilaterally disavowing whatever harebrained treaties constitute the bond with continental Europe?




        To keep with the metaphor, it's as if the prime minister has a double personality disorder: she hears the two teenagers' voices in her head and she keeps trying to satisfy both of them. She fails, because it's impossible.






        share|improve this answer















        Imagine two teenage siblings who don't want to live with their parents anymore. They hate all the rules they have to follow in their house.




        (1) What exactly does leaving the EU entail? Just writing some letter announcing that EU tariff agreements will no longer be honored?




        They could just leave the house indeed [hard Brexit]. The youngest sibling just wants this, but the oldest one realizes the risks: no food, no money [the UK strongly depends on trade with the EU].




        (2) If voters in the UK chose to leave the EU (what years ago??), why have the concrete steps from (1) not been done?




        For the past three years the two siblings have been fighting about their plan: just walk away assuming that kind strangers will provide for them [negotiate new trade deals with other countries], or stay in good terms with the parents and keep their allowance? [accepting some of the EU rules in order to maintain prosperity]




        (3) Does the current prime minister want to leave the EU or not? If yes, what prevents the prime minister from unilaterally disavowing whatever harebrained treaties constitute the bond with continental Europe?




        To keep with the metaphor, it's as if the prime minister has a double personality disorder: she hears the two teenagers' voices in her head and she keeps trying to satisfy both of them. She fails, because it's impossible.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited yesterday









        Malandy

        1175




        1175










        answered yesterday









        ErwanErwan

        2,295518




        2,295518








        • 1





          I would say in 2 you actually have three options: Stay with parents (unilaterally revoke article 50 and stay in the EU), leave parents and hope to get by with help from strangers, eg. getting some money for mowing grass or cleaning cars of people they meet (hard leave without any deal) or accept a set of conditions under which parents will keep helping them to some level but they still need to stay in a close contact (signing a deal).

          – Ister
          19 hours ago






        • 6





          Eh, it's more like three or four teenagers, one of whom doesn't want to leave but has to if the other two do.

          – Miller86
          19 hours ago











        • @Miller86 Of course. I thought about it, but for the purpose of the exercise I chose to keep the metaphor as simple as possible. It's meant to be a very simplified version, knowing there are many other answers on politicsSE where more accurate versions can be found.

          – Erwan
          16 hours ago











        • Doublle-personality disorder and teenage angst. Oh, my.

          – Robert Harvey
          15 hours ago














        • 1





          I would say in 2 you actually have three options: Stay with parents (unilaterally revoke article 50 and stay in the EU), leave parents and hope to get by with help from strangers, eg. getting some money for mowing grass or cleaning cars of people they meet (hard leave without any deal) or accept a set of conditions under which parents will keep helping them to some level but they still need to stay in a close contact (signing a deal).

          – Ister
          19 hours ago






        • 6





          Eh, it's more like three or four teenagers, one of whom doesn't want to leave but has to if the other two do.

          – Miller86
          19 hours ago











        • @Miller86 Of course. I thought about it, but for the purpose of the exercise I chose to keep the metaphor as simple as possible. It's meant to be a very simplified version, knowing there are many other answers on politicsSE where more accurate versions can be found.

          – Erwan
          16 hours ago











        • Doublle-personality disorder and teenage angst. Oh, my.

          – Robert Harvey
          15 hours ago








        1




        1





        I would say in 2 you actually have three options: Stay with parents (unilaterally revoke article 50 and stay in the EU), leave parents and hope to get by with help from strangers, eg. getting some money for mowing grass or cleaning cars of people they meet (hard leave without any deal) or accept a set of conditions under which parents will keep helping them to some level but they still need to stay in a close contact (signing a deal).

        – Ister
        19 hours ago





        I would say in 2 you actually have three options: Stay with parents (unilaterally revoke article 50 and stay in the EU), leave parents and hope to get by with help from strangers, eg. getting some money for mowing grass or cleaning cars of people they meet (hard leave without any deal) or accept a set of conditions under which parents will keep helping them to some level but they still need to stay in a close contact (signing a deal).

        – Ister
        19 hours ago




        6




        6





        Eh, it's more like three or four teenagers, one of whom doesn't want to leave but has to if the other two do.

        – Miller86
        19 hours ago





        Eh, it's more like three or four teenagers, one of whom doesn't want to leave but has to if the other two do.

        – Miller86
        19 hours ago













        @Miller86 Of course. I thought about it, but for the purpose of the exercise I chose to keep the metaphor as simple as possible. It's meant to be a very simplified version, knowing there are many other answers on politicsSE where more accurate versions can be found.

        – Erwan
        16 hours ago





        @Miller86 Of course. I thought about it, but for the purpose of the exercise I chose to keep the metaphor as simple as possible. It's meant to be a very simplified version, knowing there are many other answers on politicsSE where more accurate versions can be found.

        – Erwan
        16 hours ago













        Doublle-personality disorder and teenage angst. Oh, my.

        – Robert Harvey
        15 hours ago





        Doublle-personality disorder and teenage angst. Oh, my.

        – Robert Harvey
        15 hours ago











        19














        This is really broad, and quite a bit longer than just a sentence or two, but in language a 10 year old might understand:





        Oversimplified short version



        Liars and frauds told UK voters they'd get fairies and unicorns if the UK exited the EU. Some voters fell for it; others went fishing instead of voting.



        Since then, the UK government has delivered the best deal it can get without putting too much stress on the economy, and asked MPs to approve it. But MPs rejected the PM's deal -- twice.



        They did so because they think staying an EU member is simply better, or because they really do believe in fairies and unicorns.





        Somewhat simplified longer version



        Re 1) and 2): Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union lays out rules on how an EU member state can leave the EU. May triggered the process just under 2 years ago.



        The UK then began a negotiation with the EU to work out a divorce deal. To come into effect, this deal must get approved by the UK and by the EU. The UK parliament has rejected it twice.



        Article 50 also says that there's a deadline of 2 years to work out this divorce deal. This is why there was talk of a no deal Brexit for the past two years. The EU can extend the negotiation period if all of its remaining members agree to it -- which they did at last week's EU summit.



        The new important dates are April 12th, by which the UK will crash out without a deal unless parliament passes the divorce deal this week or comes up with a new plan by then; and May 22nd, which is the latest the UK can delay Brexit without participating in EU elections.



        Re 3): During the Brexit campaign, May was a late and unenthusiastic Remain backer, for reasons not unlike those of Corbyn -- it was the party line.



        Since then, May has embraced the Brexit decision and become a staunch Leaver. She's been standing firm, at times against even her own parliament, to deliver what she understands is what UK voters said they wanted when they voted Brexit: out of the customs union, out of the common market, and out of the ECJ's jurisdiction.



        She's on record for not wanting a second referendum, because it's too divisive, and because the risk that voters no longer care about politics is too high. She's also on the record for not wanting any or much of a delay to the Brexit process, because too long a delay might end up meaning new EU elections (a non-starter for a country that's leaving), or even no Brexit at all if things drag on for too long.





        Aside



        With the above answer in mind, I think there's an underlying assumption in your question that ought to be addressed because you seem to be sold on the notion that the UK can just burn the "harebrained" treaties to the ground and shrug off the consequences. It's not that simple.



        Leaving the EU entails hitting the reset button on:




        • The international agreements the UK is involved in through the EU, be them with parties external to the EU (e.g. EU trade deals with Canada or Japan, EU air travel arrangements that allow UK airlines to fly outside of the UK's airspace and foreign airlines to fly inside UK airspace) or internal to the EU (e.g. fishing rights inside EU waters, etc.).


        • Common market-related regulation, ranging from trivial looking matters, as mocked in this Yes, Minister sketch, that aim to make products reasonably comparable across the EU, to more important matters like food standards (e.g. banning chlorinated chicken). The EU goal in most cases here revolves around safety, quality standards, and removing non-tariff trade barriers. The safety standards alone are good enough a reason to inspect anything crossing the UK-EU border in the event of no deal, and that can put supply chains (food, auto parts, etc.) in jeopardy.


        • Freedom of movement of goods, capital, services, and labour, which the EU has made clear again and again are all or nothing. A major side effect of this is the customs union, and what that entails for the Northern Ireland border. Another major one is whether UK-based banks (a significant part of the economy) are allowed to operate in the EU.



        What caught the imagination of planners and the media are the future Dover-Calais border-related deadlock, grounded flights, food and medical shortages, and so forth. But these are only aspects of what a No Deal scenario might look like.



        Also, there's a slew of much less abstract problems that need a response before the UK formally leaves. To list but a few:




        • UK budgetary commitments to EU projects -- will the UK based projects get funded if the UK refuses to honor its financial commitments?


        • UK officials who retire on an EU pension -- who funds this if the UK refuses to honor its financial commitments?


        • UK students who are studying in the EU, and vice versa -- who pays for their university fees if the current arrangements get cancelled?


        • UK workers living in the EU, and vice versa -- do they still have the right to live and work where they are in the event of a no deal Brexit?


        • UK retirees in Spain and elsewhere -- does the NHS continue to pay for their medical bills, and on what terms?


        • The Northern Irish border -- should the UK respect the Good Friday Agreement or is it ready to risk the resurgence of The Troubles?



        These little details add up, and directly affect millions of people. It's not like you can go "screw this" and to hell with the consequences.






        share|improve this answer





















        • 14





          The children were supposed to handle 2 sentences, alas they lost interest at some point near the nonetheless in the first sentence.

          – kubanczyk
          yesterday






        • 7





          -1 for the fairies and unicorns. I don't like Brexit either, but that doesn't mean I would support strawman arguments about it.

          – vsz
          yesterday






        • 15





          @vsz: In what world is having your cake and eating it not fairies and unicorns? Until now the UK was in the EU with a whole bunch of opt outs. Now it wants out with an even larger number of opt ins. Speaking as a continental European, I'm disgruntled if anything, about how much the EU has let go to accommodate a wedding partner that never really wanted to be in wedlock to begin with. Also, do continue reading, because you seem to have stopped at the child version.

          – Denis de Bernardy
          yesterday








        • 5





          While I'm a die-hard remainer, this comes off as far too biased.

          – Omegastick
          23 hours ago






        • 1





          @DenisdeBernardy : I'm also anti-Brexit, there is no need for you to try to convince me. But your answer is still biased, and you are still using strawman arguments.

          – vsz
          15 hours ago
















        19














        This is really broad, and quite a bit longer than just a sentence or two, but in language a 10 year old might understand:





        Oversimplified short version



        Liars and frauds told UK voters they'd get fairies and unicorns if the UK exited the EU. Some voters fell for it; others went fishing instead of voting.



        Since then, the UK government has delivered the best deal it can get without putting too much stress on the economy, and asked MPs to approve it. But MPs rejected the PM's deal -- twice.



        They did so because they think staying an EU member is simply better, or because they really do believe in fairies and unicorns.





        Somewhat simplified longer version



        Re 1) and 2): Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union lays out rules on how an EU member state can leave the EU. May triggered the process just under 2 years ago.



        The UK then began a negotiation with the EU to work out a divorce deal. To come into effect, this deal must get approved by the UK and by the EU. The UK parliament has rejected it twice.



        Article 50 also says that there's a deadline of 2 years to work out this divorce deal. This is why there was talk of a no deal Brexit for the past two years. The EU can extend the negotiation period if all of its remaining members agree to it -- which they did at last week's EU summit.



        The new important dates are April 12th, by which the UK will crash out without a deal unless parliament passes the divorce deal this week or comes up with a new plan by then; and May 22nd, which is the latest the UK can delay Brexit without participating in EU elections.



        Re 3): During the Brexit campaign, May was a late and unenthusiastic Remain backer, for reasons not unlike those of Corbyn -- it was the party line.



        Since then, May has embraced the Brexit decision and become a staunch Leaver. She's been standing firm, at times against even her own parliament, to deliver what she understands is what UK voters said they wanted when they voted Brexit: out of the customs union, out of the common market, and out of the ECJ's jurisdiction.



        She's on record for not wanting a second referendum, because it's too divisive, and because the risk that voters no longer care about politics is too high. She's also on the record for not wanting any or much of a delay to the Brexit process, because too long a delay might end up meaning new EU elections (a non-starter for a country that's leaving), or even no Brexit at all if things drag on for too long.





        Aside



        With the above answer in mind, I think there's an underlying assumption in your question that ought to be addressed because you seem to be sold on the notion that the UK can just burn the "harebrained" treaties to the ground and shrug off the consequences. It's not that simple.



        Leaving the EU entails hitting the reset button on:




        • The international agreements the UK is involved in through the EU, be them with parties external to the EU (e.g. EU trade deals with Canada or Japan, EU air travel arrangements that allow UK airlines to fly outside of the UK's airspace and foreign airlines to fly inside UK airspace) or internal to the EU (e.g. fishing rights inside EU waters, etc.).


        • Common market-related regulation, ranging from trivial looking matters, as mocked in this Yes, Minister sketch, that aim to make products reasonably comparable across the EU, to more important matters like food standards (e.g. banning chlorinated chicken). The EU goal in most cases here revolves around safety, quality standards, and removing non-tariff trade barriers. The safety standards alone are good enough a reason to inspect anything crossing the UK-EU border in the event of no deal, and that can put supply chains (food, auto parts, etc.) in jeopardy.


        • Freedom of movement of goods, capital, services, and labour, which the EU has made clear again and again are all or nothing. A major side effect of this is the customs union, and what that entails for the Northern Ireland border. Another major one is whether UK-based banks (a significant part of the economy) are allowed to operate in the EU.



        What caught the imagination of planners and the media are the future Dover-Calais border-related deadlock, grounded flights, food and medical shortages, and so forth. But these are only aspects of what a No Deal scenario might look like.



        Also, there's a slew of much less abstract problems that need a response before the UK formally leaves. To list but a few:




        • UK budgetary commitments to EU projects -- will the UK based projects get funded if the UK refuses to honor its financial commitments?


        • UK officials who retire on an EU pension -- who funds this if the UK refuses to honor its financial commitments?


        • UK students who are studying in the EU, and vice versa -- who pays for their university fees if the current arrangements get cancelled?


        • UK workers living in the EU, and vice versa -- do they still have the right to live and work where they are in the event of a no deal Brexit?


        • UK retirees in Spain and elsewhere -- does the NHS continue to pay for their medical bills, and on what terms?


        • The Northern Irish border -- should the UK respect the Good Friday Agreement or is it ready to risk the resurgence of The Troubles?



        These little details add up, and directly affect millions of people. It's not like you can go "screw this" and to hell with the consequences.






        share|improve this answer





















        • 14





          The children were supposed to handle 2 sentences, alas they lost interest at some point near the nonetheless in the first sentence.

          – kubanczyk
          yesterday






        • 7





          -1 for the fairies and unicorns. I don't like Brexit either, but that doesn't mean I would support strawman arguments about it.

          – vsz
          yesterday






        • 15





          @vsz: In what world is having your cake and eating it not fairies and unicorns? Until now the UK was in the EU with a whole bunch of opt outs. Now it wants out with an even larger number of opt ins. Speaking as a continental European, I'm disgruntled if anything, about how much the EU has let go to accommodate a wedding partner that never really wanted to be in wedlock to begin with. Also, do continue reading, because you seem to have stopped at the child version.

          – Denis de Bernardy
          yesterday








        • 5





          While I'm a die-hard remainer, this comes off as far too biased.

          – Omegastick
          23 hours ago






        • 1





          @DenisdeBernardy : I'm also anti-Brexit, there is no need for you to try to convince me. But your answer is still biased, and you are still using strawman arguments.

          – vsz
          15 hours ago














        19












        19








        19







        This is really broad, and quite a bit longer than just a sentence or two, but in language a 10 year old might understand:





        Oversimplified short version



        Liars and frauds told UK voters they'd get fairies and unicorns if the UK exited the EU. Some voters fell for it; others went fishing instead of voting.



        Since then, the UK government has delivered the best deal it can get without putting too much stress on the economy, and asked MPs to approve it. But MPs rejected the PM's deal -- twice.



        They did so because they think staying an EU member is simply better, or because they really do believe in fairies and unicorns.





        Somewhat simplified longer version



        Re 1) and 2): Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union lays out rules on how an EU member state can leave the EU. May triggered the process just under 2 years ago.



        The UK then began a negotiation with the EU to work out a divorce deal. To come into effect, this deal must get approved by the UK and by the EU. The UK parliament has rejected it twice.



        Article 50 also says that there's a deadline of 2 years to work out this divorce deal. This is why there was talk of a no deal Brexit for the past two years. The EU can extend the negotiation period if all of its remaining members agree to it -- which they did at last week's EU summit.



        The new important dates are April 12th, by which the UK will crash out without a deal unless parliament passes the divorce deal this week or comes up with a new plan by then; and May 22nd, which is the latest the UK can delay Brexit without participating in EU elections.



        Re 3): During the Brexit campaign, May was a late and unenthusiastic Remain backer, for reasons not unlike those of Corbyn -- it was the party line.



        Since then, May has embraced the Brexit decision and become a staunch Leaver. She's been standing firm, at times against even her own parliament, to deliver what she understands is what UK voters said they wanted when they voted Brexit: out of the customs union, out of the common market, and out of the ECJ's jurisdiction.



        She's on record for not wanting a second referendum, because it's too divisive, and because the risk that voters no longer care about politics is too high. She's also on the record for not wanting any or much of a delay to the Brexit process, because too long a delay might end up meaning new EU elections (a non-starter for a country that's leaving), or even no Brexit at all if things drag on for too long.





        Aside



        With the above answer in mind, I think there's an underlying assumption in your question that ought to be addressed because you seem to be sold on the notion that the UK can just burn the "harebrained" treaties to the ground and shrug off the consequences. It's not that simple.



        Leaving the EU entails hitting the reset button on:




        • The international agreements the UK is involved in through the EU, be them with parties external to the EU (e.g. EU trade deals with Canada or Japan, EU air travel arrangements that allow UK airlines to fly outside of the UK's airspace and foreign airlines to fly inside UK airspace) or internal to the EU (e.g. fishing rights inside EU waters, etc.).


        • Common market-related regulation, ranging from trivial looking matters, as mocked in this Yes, Minister sketch, that aim to make products reasonably comparable across the EU, to more important matters like food standards (e.g. banning chlorinated chicken). The EU goal in most cases here revolves around safety, quality standards, and removing non-tariff trade barriers. The safety standards alone are good enough a reason to inspect anything crossing the UK-EU border in the event of no deal, and that can put supply chains (food, auto parts, etc.) in jeopardy.


        • Freedom of movement of goods, capital, services, and labour, which the EU has made clear again and again are all or nothing. A major side effect of this is the customs union, and what that entails for the Northern Ireland border. Another major one is whether UK-based banks (a significant part of the economy) are allowed to operate in the EU.



        What caught the imagination of planners and the media are the future Dover-Calais border-related deadlock, grounded flights, food and medical shortages, and so forth. But these are only aspects of what a No Deal scenario might look like.



        Also, there's a slew of much less abstract problems that need a response before the UK formally leaves. To list but a few:




        • UK budgetary commitments to EU projects -- will the UK based projects get funded if the UK refuses to honor its financial commitments?


        • UK officials who retire on an EU pension -- who funds this if the UK refuses to honor its financial commitments?


        • UK students who are studying in the EU, and vice versa -- who pays for their university fees if the current arrangements get cancelled?


        • UK workers living in the EU, and vice versa -- do they still have the right to live and work where they are in the event of a no deal Brexit?


        • UK retirees in Spain and elsewhere -- does the NHS continue to pay for their medical bills, and on what terms?


        • The Northern Irish border -- should the UK respect the Good Friday Agreement or is it ready to risk the resurgence of The Troubles?



        These little details add up, and directly affect millions of people. It's not like you can go "screw this" and to hell with the consequences.






        share|improve this answer















        This is really broad, and quite a bit longer than just a sentence or two, but in language a 10 year old might understand:





        Oversimplified short version



        Liars and frauds told UK voters they'd get fairies and unicorns if the UK exited the EU. Some voters fell for it; others went fishing instead of voting.



        Since then, the UK government has delivered the best deal it can get without putting too much stress on the economy, and asked MPs to approve it. But MPs rejected the PM's deal -- twice.



        They did so because they think staying an EU member is simply better, or because they really do believe in fairies and unicorns.





        Somewhat simplified longer version



        Re 1) and 2): Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union lays out rules on how an EU member state can leave the EU. May triggered the process just under 2 years ago.



        The UK then began a negotiation with the EU to work out a divorce deal. To come into effect, this deal must get approved by the UK and by the EU. The UK parliament has rejected it twice.



        Article 50 also says that there's a deadline of 2 years to work out this divorce deal. This is why there was talk of a no deal Brexit for the past two years. The EU can extend the negotiation period if all of its remaining members agree to it -- which they did at last week's EU summit.



        The new important dates are April 12th, by which the UK will crash out without a deal unless parliament passes the divorce deal this week or comes up with a new plan by then; and May 22nd, which is the latest the UK can delay Brexit without participating in EU elections.



        Re 3): During the Brexit campaign, May was a late and unenthusiastic Remain backer, for reasons not unlike those of Corbyn -- it was the party line.



        Since then, May has embraced the Brexit decision and become a staunch Leaver. She's been standing firm, at times against even her own parliament, to deliver what she understands is what UK voters said they wanted when they voted Brexit: out of the customs union, out of the common market, and out of the ECJ's jurisdiction.



        She's on record for not wanting a second referendum, because it's too divisive, and because the risk that voters no longer care about politics is too high. She's also on the record for not wanting any or much of a delay to the Brexit process, because too long a delay might end up meaning new EU elections (a non-starter for a country that's leaving), or even no Brexit at all if things drag on for too long.





        Aside



        With the above answer in mind, I think there's an underlying assumption in your question that ought to be addressed because you seem to be sold on the notion that the UK can just burn the "harebrained" treaties to the ground and shrug off the consequences. It's not that simple.



        Leaving the EU entails hitting the reset button on:




        • The international agreements the UK is involved in through the EU, be them with parties external to the EU (e.g. EU trade deals with Canada or Japan, EU air travel arrangements that allow UK airlines to fly outside of the UK's airspace and foreign airlines to fly inside UK airspace) or internal to the EU (e.g. fishing rights inside EU waters, etc.).


        • Common market-related regulation, ranging from trivial looking matters, as mocked in this Yes, Minister sketch, that aim to make products reasonably comparable across the EU, to more important matters like food standards (e.g. banning chlorinated chicken). The EU goal in most cases here revolves around safety, quality standards, and removing non-tariff trade barriers. The safety standards alone are good enough a reason to inspect anything crossing the UK-EU border in the event of no deal, and that can put supply chains (food, auto parts, etc.) in jeopardy.


        • Freedom of movement of goods, capital, services, and labour, which the EU has made clear again and again are all or nothing. A major side effect of this is the customs union, and what that entails for the Northern Ireland border. Another major one is whether UK-based banks (a significant part of the economy) are allowed to operate in the EU.



        What caught the imagination of planners and the media are the future Dover-Calais border-related deadlock, grounded flights, food and medical shortages, and so forth. But these are only aspects of what a No Deal scenario might look like.



        Also, there's a slew of much less abstract problems that need a response before the UK formally leaves. To list but a few:




        • UK budgetary commitments to EU projects -- will the UK based projects get funded if the UK refuses to honor its financial commitments?


        • UK officials who retire on an EU pension -- who funds this if the UK refuses to honor its financial commitments?


        • UK students who are studying in the EU, and vice versa -- who pays for their university fees if the current arrangements get cancelled?


        • UK workers living in the EU, and vice versa -- do they still have the right to live and work where they are in the event of a no deal Brexit?


        • UK retirees in Spain and elsewhere -- does the NHS continue to pay for their medical bills, and on what terms?


        • The Northern Irish border -- should the UK respect the Good Friday Agreement or is it ready to risk the resurgence of The Troubles?



        These little details add up, and directly affect millions of people. It's not like you can go "screw this" and to hell with the consequences.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 7 hours ago

























        answered yesterday









        Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy

        13.1k33653




        13.1k33653








        • 14





          The children were supposed to handle 2 sentences, alas they lost interest at some point near the nonetheless in the first sentence.

          – kubanczyk
          yesterday






        • 7





          -1 for the fairies and unicorns. I don't like Brexit either, but that doesn't mean I would support strawman arguments about it.

          – vsz
          yesterday






        • 15





          @vsz: In what world is having your cake and eating it not fairies and unicorns? Until now the UK was in the EU with a whole bunch of opt outs. Now it wants out with an even larger number of opt ins. Speaking as a continental European, I'm disgruntled if anything, about how much the EU has let go to accommodate a wedding partner that never really wanted to be in wedlock to begin with. Also, do continue reading, because you seem to have stopped at the child version.

          – Denis de Bernardy
          yesterday








        • 5





          While I'm a die-hard remainer, this comes off as far too biased.

          – Omegastick
          23 hours ago






        • 1





          @DenisdeBernardy : I'm also anti-Brexit, there is no need for you to try to convince me. But your answer is still biased, and you are still using strawman arguments.

          – vsz
          15 hours ago














        • 14





          The children were supposed to handle 2 sentences, alas they lost interest at some point near the nonetheless in the first sentence.

          – kubanczyk
          yesterday






        • 7





          -1 for the fairies and unicorns. I don't like Brexit either, but that doesn't mean I would support strawman arguments about it.

          – vsz
          yesterday






        • 15





          @vsz: In what world is having your cake and eating it not fairies and unicorns? Until now the UK was in the EU with a whole bunch of opt outs. Now it wants out with an even larger number of opt ins. Speaking as a continental European, I'm disgruntled if anything, about how much the EU has let go to accommodate a wedding partner that never really wanted to be in wedlock to begin with. Also, do continue reading, because you seem to have stopped at the child version.

          – Denis de Bernardy
          yesterday








        • 5





          While I'm a die-hard remainer, this comes off as far too biased.

          – Omegastick
          23 hours ago






        • 1





          @DenisdeBernardy : I'm also anti-Brexit, there is no need for you to try to convince me. But your answer is still biased, and you are still using strawman arguments.

          – vsz
          15 hours ago








        14




        14





        The children were supposed to handle 2 sentences, alas they lost interest at some point near the nonetheless in the first sentence.

        – kubanczyk
        yesterday





        The children were supposed to handle 2 sentences, alas they lost interest at some point near the nonetheless in the first sentence.

        – kubanczyk
        yesterday




        7




        7





        -1 for the fairies and unicorns. I don't like Brexit either, but that doesn't mean I would support strawman arguments about it.

        – vsz
        yesterday





        -1 for the fairies and unicorns. I don't like Brexit either, but that doesn't mean I would support strawman arguments about it.

        – vsz
        yesterday




        15




        15





        @vsz: In what world is having your cake and eating it not fairies and unicorns? Until now the UK was in the EU with a whole bunch of opt outs. Now it wants out with an even larger number of opt ins. Speaking as a continental European, I'm disgruntled if anything, about how much the EU has let go to accommodate a wedding partner that never really wanted to be in wedlock to begin with. Also, do continue reading, because you seem to have stopped at the child version.

        – Denis de Bernardy
        yesterday







        @vsz: In what world is having your cake and eating it not fairies and unicorns? Until now the UK was in the EU with a whole bunch of opt outs. Now it wants out with an even larger number of opt ins. Speaking as a continental European, I'm disgruntled if anything, about how much the EU has let go to accommodate a wedding partner that never really wanted to be in wedlock to begin with. Also, do continue reading, because you seem to have stopped at the child version.

        – Denis de Bernardy
        yesterday






        5




        5





        While I'm a die-hard remainer, this comes off as far too biased.

        – Omegastick
        23 hours ago





        While I'm a die-hard remainer, this comes off as far too biased.

        – Omegastick
        23 hours ago




        1




        1





        @DenisdeBernardy : I'm also anti-Brexit, there is no need for you to try to convince me. But your answer is still biased, and you are still using strawman arguments.

        – vsz
        15 hours ago





        @DenisdeBernardy : I'm also anti-Brexit, there is no need for you to try to convince me. But your answer is still biased, and you are still using strawman arguments.

        – vsz
        15 hours ago











        14














        The EU is not just about tariffs, it's a whole legal framework. It details what products can be sold and how, how farming and fishing is carried out, how truck and plane companies can operate internationally, who is allowed to live and work in other countries, and so on. This covers a lot of law. (The acquis communitaire).



        Businesses outside the EU have to comply with these rules to sell into the EU. People from outside the EU have to comply with the (usually very expensive and time consuming) rules for immigration.



        The Brexit proposal was effectively that we could stop complying with the rules we didn't like, without being treated as if we were outside the EU (and all the paperwork that implies). Unsurprisingly this did not go down well.



        Two particularly important areas are what happens at Calais: any delay at customs results in the M20 being turned into a lorry park, and any long-term reduction in flow will result in great disruption to UK trade. And what happens across the Irish border: at the moment it runs through houses and farms, and people commute across it. Any checks there will be extremely unpopular and may result in Northern Ireland invoking its right to leave the UK and return to Ireland.



        So, in order to leave the EU without chaos, a deal must be made.



        However, there is no available deal that has the support of enough MPs in Parliament to actually happen. Hence the current chaos.




        what prevents the prime minister from unilaterally disavowing whatever harebrained treaties constitute the bond with continental Europe




        "Harebrained" is a stupid condemnation of treaties that have been carefully agreed over decades by hundreds of representatives.



        The government's own assessment says that leaving unilaterally will result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs and food and medicine shortages, since full non-EU customs checks will be imposed at Calais and it will no longer be legal for most UK lorry drivers to drive in the EU or vice versa.






        share|improve this answer
























        • Good job on calling out the harebrained comment.

          – Jontia
          19 hours ago
















        14














        The EU is not just about tariffs, it's a whole legal framework. It details what products can be sold and how, how farming and fishing is carried out, how truck and plane companies can operate internationally, who is allowed to live and work in other countries, and so on. This covers a lot of law. (The acquis communitaire).



        Businesses outside the EU have to comply with these rules to sell into the EU. People from outside the EU have to comply with the (usually very expensive and time consuming) rules for immigration.



        The Brexit proposal was effectively that we could stop complying with the rules we didn't like, without being treated as if we were outside the EU (and all the paperwork that implies). Unsurprisingly this did not go down well.



        Two particularly important areas are what happens at Calais: any delay at customs results in the M20 being turned into a lorry park, and any long-term reduction in flow will result in great disruption to UK trade. And what happens across the Irish border: at the moment it runs through houses and farms, and people commute across it. Any checks there will be extremely unpopular and may result in Northern Ireland invoking its right to leave the UK and return to Ireland.



        So, in order to leave the EU without chaos, a deal must be made.



        However, there is no available deal that has the support of enough MPs in Parliament to actually happen. Hence the current chaos.




        what prevents the prime minister from unilaterally disavowing whatever harebrained treaties constitute the bond with continental Europe




        "Harebrained" is a stupid condemnation of treaties that have been carefully agreed over decades by hundreds of representatives.



        The government's own assessment says that leaving unilaterally will result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs and food and medicine shortages, since full non-EU customs checks will be imposed at Calais and it will no longer be legal for most UK lorry drivers to drive in the EU or vice versa.






        share|improve this answer
























        • Good job on calling out the harebrained comment.

          – Jontia
          19 hours ago














        14












        14








        14







        The EU is not just about tariffs, it's a whole legal framework. It details what products can be sold and how, how farming and fishing is carried out, how truck and plane companies can operate internationally, who is allowed to live and work in other countries, and so on. This covers a lot of law. (The acquis communitaire).



        Businesses outside the EU have to comply with these rules to sell into the EU. People from outside the EU have to comply with the (usually very expensive and time consuming) rules for immigration.



        The Brexit proposal was effectively that we could stop complying with the rules we didn't like, without being treated as if we were outside the EU (and all the paperwork that implies). Unsurprisingly this did not go down well.



        Two particularly important areas are what happens at Calais: any delay at customs results in the M20 being turned into a lorry park, and any long-term reduction in flow will result in great disruption to UK trade. And what happens across the Irish border: at the moment it runs through houses and farms, and people commute across it. Any checks there will be extremely unpopular and may result in Northern Ireland invoking its right to leave the UK and return to Ireland.



        So, in order to leave the EU without chaos, a deal must be made.



        However, there is no available deal that has the support of enough MPs in Parliament to actually happen. Hence the current chaos.




        what prevents the prime minister from unilaterally disavowing whatever harebrained treaties constitute the bond with continental Europe




        "Harebrained" is a stupid condemnation of treaties that have been carefully agreed over decades by hundreds of representatives.



        The government's own assessment says that leaving unilaterally will result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs and food and medicine shortages, since full non-EU customs checks will be imposed at Calais and it will no longer be legal for most UK lorry drivers to drive in the EU or vice versa.






        share|improve this answer













        The EU is not just about tariffs, it's a whole legal framework. It details what products can be sold and how, how farming and fishing is carried out, how truck and plane companies can operate internationally, who is allowed to live and work in other countries, and so on. This covers a lot of law. (The acquis communitaire).



        Businesses outside the EU have to comply with these rules to sell into the EU. People from outside the EU have to comply with the (usually very expensive and time consuming) rules for immigration.



        The Brexit proposal was effectively that we could stop complying with the rules we didn't like, without being treated as if we were outside the EU (and all the paperwork that implies). Unsurprisingly this did not go down well.



        Two particularly important areas are what happens at Calais: any delay at customs results in the M20 being turned into a lorry park, and any long-term reduction in flow will result in great disruption to UK trade. And what happens across the Irish border: at the moment it runs through houses and farms, and people commute across it. Any checks there will be extremely unpopular and may result in Northern Ireland invoking its right to leave the UK and return to Ireland.



        So, in order to leave the EU without chaos, a deal must be made.



        However, there is no available deal that has the support of enough MPs in Parliament to actually happen. Hence the current chaos.




        what prevents the prime minister from unilaterally disavowing whatever harebrained treaties constitute the bond with continental Europe




        "Harebrained" is a stupid condemnation of treaties that have been carefully agreed over decades by hundreds of representatives.



        The government's own assessment says that leaving unilaterally will result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs and food and medicine shortages, since full non-EU customs checks will be imposed at Calais and it will no longer be legal for most UK lorry drivers to drive in the EU or vice versa.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered yesterday









        pjc50pjc50

        6,89911532




        6,89911532













        • Good job on calling out the harebrained comment.

          – Jontia
          19 hours ago



















        • Good job on calling out the harebrained comment.

          – Jontia
          19 hours ago

















        Good job on calling out the harebrained comment.

        – Jontia
        19 hours ago





        Good job on calling out the harebrained comment.

        – Jontia
        19 hours ago











        14














        Imagine you are a member of the local tennis club.

        You can play tennis for free all the time, but you have to follow the rules of the club.



        Now you don't like the rules any more, so you decide to quit.



        'Hard Exit' means you quit, but obviously you can't play tennis there anymore. You don't like that.

        You are asking to quit, but be allowed to still play tennis there, without following the rules. Obviously, the tennis club doesn't agree to that.



        Time goes on, and things are not changing. Either you are bound by the rules, or you can't play there. You still don't like either solution. Tick - tock.






        share|improve this answer




























          14














          Imagine you are a member of the local tennis club.

          You can play tennis for free all the time, but you have to follow the rules of the club.



          Now you don't like the rules any more, so you decide to quit.



          'Hard Exit' means you quit, but obviously you can't play tennis there anymore. You don't like that.

          You are asking to quit, but be allowed to still play tennis there, without following the rules. Obviously, the tennis club doesn't agree to that.



          Time goes on, and things are not changing. Either you are bound by the rules, or you can't play there. You still don't like either solution. Tick - tock.






          share|improve this answer


























            14












            14








            14







            Imagine you are a member of the local tennis club.

            You can play tennis for free all the time, but you have to follow the rules of the club.



            Now you don't like the rules any more, so you decide to quit.



            'Hard Exit' means you quit, but obviously you can't play tennis there anymore. You don't like that.

            You are asking to quit, but be allowed to still play tennis there, without following the rules. Obviously, the tennis club doesn't agree to that.



            Time goes on, and things are not changing. Either you are bound by the rules, or you can't play there. You still don't like either solution. Tick - tock.






            share|improve this answer













            Imagine you are a member of the local tennis club.

            You can play tennis for free all the time, but you have to follow the rules of the club.



            Now you don't like the rules any more, so you decide to quit.



            'Hard Exit' means you quit, but obviously you can't play tennis there anymore. You don't like that.

            You are asking to quit, but be allowed to still play tennis there, without following the rules. Obviously, the tennis club doesn't agree to that.



            Time goes on, and things are not changing. Either you are bound by the rules, or you can't play there. You still don't like either solution. Tick - tock.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered yesterday









            AganjuAganju

            58125




            58125























                11














                I'll try the simplest answers I can as I tried to explain to my 9 year old:




                • Yes. Leaving just means telling the EU we want to leave. To support that, they must believe it was a decision we came to through our normal process of making decisions. Nothing about tariffs or immigration or such - that sort of thing can be worked out separately.


                • The decision was actually closer to 3 years ago. The reasons why we seem to have not actually done it are many and debatable. To summarize: Nobody expected the result and it took a lot of time trying to figure out what to do and how to do it. It's possible some bad decisions were made then at that initial stage and nobody had enough sense, or possibly strength of character, to get that straightened out then. So it's dragged out a bit.


                • The current PM did not initially want to leave. But she is a politician and politicians will often say things to get votes and public support at one point, and then do something completely different later for the exact same reason. I know that's confusing and it confuses (and angers) us voters as well. But that's the way it is and is rarely otherwise. Any breaking of treaties, unless specified in the treaty itself, usually has to have at least some kind of Parliamentary support. In this particular case, that was made the case by both a vote of Parliament and a Supreme Court verdict.



                I know this sounds child-like, but my 9 year old is bright and asks a lot of questions. This is pretty much how I've had to sum things up in a non-biased way (I want her to think for herself on matters like this, not just have my or her mother's views).






                share|improve this answer





















                • 4





                  About point 3, I think it's possible that Theresa May started out wanting to stay, but changed her mind after the referendum - "I want to stay but since the majority wants to leave, let's leave".

                  – Allure
                  yesterday
















                11














                I'll try the simplest answers I can as I tried to explain to my 9 year old:




                • Yes. Leaving just means telling the EU we want to leave. To support that, they must believe it was a decision we came to through our normal process of making decisions. Nothing about tariffs or immigration or such - that sort of thing can be worked out separately.


                • The decision was actually closer to 3 years ago. The reasons why we seem to have not actually done it are many and debatable. To summarize: Nobody expected the result and it took a lot of time trying to figure out what to do and how to do it. It's possible some bad decisions were made then at that initial stage and nobody had enough sense, or possibly strength of character, to get that straightened out then. So it's dragged out a bit.


                • The current PM did not initially want to leave. But she is a politician and politicians will often say things to get votes and public support at one point, and then do something completely different later for the exact same reason. I know that's confusing and it confuses (and angers) us voters as well. But that's the way it is and is rarely otherwise. Any breaking of treaties, unless specified in the treaty itself, usually has to have at least some kind of Parliamentary support. In this particular case, that was made the case by both a vote of Parliament and a Supreme Court verdict.



                I know this sounds child-like, but my 9 year old is bright and asks a lot of questions. This is pretty much how I've had to sum things up in a non-biased way (I want her to think for herself on matters like this, not just have my or her mother's views).






                share|improve this answer





















                • 4





                  About point 3, I think it's possible that Theresa May started out wanting to stay, but changed her mind after the referendum - "I want to stay but since the majority wants to leave, let's leave".

                  – Allure
                  yesterday














                11












                11








                11







                I'll try the simplest answers I can as I tried to explain to my 9 year old:




                • Yes. Leaving just means telling the EU we want to leave. To support that, they must believe it was a decision we came to through our normal process of making decisions. Nothing about tariffs or immigration or such - that sort of thing can be worked out separately.


                • The decision was actually closer to 3 years ago. The reasons why we seem to have not actually done it are many and debatable. To summarize: Nobody expected the result and it took a lot of time trying to figure out what to do and how to do it. It's possible some bad decisions were made then at that initial stage and nobody had enough sense, or possibly strength of character, to get that straightened out then. So it's dragged out a bit.


                • The current PM did not initially want to leave. But she is a politician and politicians will often say things to get votes and public support at one point, and then do something completely different later for the exact same reason. I know that's confusing and it confuses (and angers) us voters as well. But that's the way it is and is rarely otherwise. Any breaking of treaties, unless specified in the treaty itself, usually has to have at least some kind of Parliamentary support. In this particular case, that was made the case by both a vote of Parliament and a Supreme Court verdict.



                I know this sounds child-like, but my 9 year old is bright and asks a lot of questions. This is pretty much how I've had to sum things up in a non-biased way (I want her to think for herself on matters like this, not just have my or her mother's views).






                share|improve this answer















                I'll try the simplest answers I can as I tried to explain to my 9 year old:




                • Yes. Leaving just means telling the EU we want to leave. To support that, they must believe it was a decision we came to through our normal process of making decisions. Nothing about tariffs or immigration or such - that sort of thing can be worked out separately.


                • The decision was actually closer to 3 years ago. The reasons why we seem to have not actually done it are many and debatable. To summarize: Nobody expected the result and it took a lot of time trying to figure out what to do and how to do it. It's possible some bad decisions were made then at that initial stage and nobody had enough sense, or possibly strength of character, to get that straightened out then. So it's dragged out a bit.


                • The current PM did not initially want to leave. But she is a politician and politicians will often say things to get votes and public support at one point, and then do something completely different later for the exact same reason. I know that's confusing and it confuses (and angers) us voters as well. But that's the way it is and is rarely otherwise. Any breaking of treaties, unless specified in the treaty itself, usually has to have at least some kind of Parliamentary support. In this particular case, that was made the case by both a vote of Parliament and a Supreme Court verdict.



                I know this sounds child-like, but my 9 year old is bright and asks a lot of questions. This is pretty much how I've had to sum things up in a non-biased way (I want her to think for herself on matters like this, not just have my or her mother's views).







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited yesterday









                Malandy

                1175




                1175










                answered yesterday









                ouflakouflak

                1,445613




                1,445613








                • 4





                  About point 3, I think it's possible that Theresa May started out wanting to stay, but changed her mind after the referendum - "I want to stay but since the majority wants to leave, let's leave".

                  – Allure
                  yesterday














                • 4





                  About point 3, I think it's possible that Theresa May started out wanting to stay, but changed her mind after the referendum - "I want to stay but since the majority wants to leave, let's leave".

                  – Allure
                  yesterday








                4




                4





                About point 3, I think it's possible that Theresa May started out wanting to stay, but changed her mind after the referendum - "I want to stay but since the majority wants to leave, let's leave".

                – Allure
                yesterday





                About point 3, I think it's possible that Theresa May started out wanting to stay, but changed her mind after the referendum - "I want to stay but since the majority wants to leave, let's leave".

                – Allure
                yesterday











                5














                I can't do it in two child-proof sentences, but I'll try to come close.




                1. The EU is a union of 28 states which has been granted some but not all powers of a central government by the member states.

                2. UK voters decided to leave the EU. This is complicated because the EU had so many powers for so long and the UK voters told the UK government to negotiate the details with the remaining EU states.

                3. If the UK government and the remaining EU states cannot agree on the details of leaving, the UK will leave without a deal. That means medical drugs approved in the EU are no longer legal to use in the UK and the other way around, UK citizen cannot travel and work in the EU without a visa and the other way around, UK banks cannot sell products in the EU and the other way around. (There are emergency measures to handle some of this. UK and EU citizens won't be deported March 30th even if there is no deal and no extension.)

                4. When UK voters decided to leave, they had a simple question with a "yes" or "no" answer. Probably most did not want to leave without a deal.

                5. The UK parliament cannot agree on if and how to leave, but they do not want to leave without a deal. The UK parliament has a complicated question with many possible answers, and no answer has a majority for it.


                Eleven sentences, not entirely child-proof, and admittedly biased against the current UK parliament and government.






                share|improve this answer





















                • 6





                  "Most but not all UK citizens want to leave" is an extraordinarily misleading and likely factually inaccurate statement, but sure.

                  – Carcer
                  yesterday






                • 3





                  @Carcer, Leave won the vote. Getting the referendum result into a single child-friendly sentence does not allow for many qualifiers, like people who did not show up because they thought everything would be all right, or people who voted because they believed extravagant claims.

                  – o.m.
                  yesterday






                • 3





                  It's probably safer to say "most but not all UK citizens wanted to leave", or even "most people who voted in the referendum 3 years ago wanted to leave". It's very hard to say what they want now, and even harder to say whether they want a deal, what kind of deal, etc, and that's an important part of the current situation.

                  – IMSoP
                  yesterday











                • @IMSoP, better now?

                  – o.m.
                  yesterday
















                5














                I can't do it in two child-proof sentences, but I'll try to come close.




                1. The EU is a union of 28 states which has been granted some but not all powers of a central government by the member states.

                2. UK voters decided to leave the EU. This is complicated because the EU had so many powers for so long and the UK voters told the UK government to negotiate the details with the remaining EU states.

                3. If the UK government and the remaining EU states cannot agree on the details of leaving, the UK will leave without a deal. That means medical drugs approved in the EU are no longer legal to use in the UK and the other way around, UK citizen cannot travel and work in the EU without a visa and the other way around, UK banks cannot sell products in the EU and the other way around. (There are emergency measures to handle some of this. UK and EU citizens won't be deported March 30th even if there is no deal and no extension.)

                4. When UK voters decided to leave, they had a simple question with a "yes" or "no" answer. Probably most did not want to leave without a deal.

                5. The UK parliament cannot agree on if and how to leave, but they do not want to leave without a deal. The UK parliament has a complicated question with many possible answers, and no answer has a majority for it.


                Eleven sentences, not entirely child-proof, and admittedly biased against the current UK parliament and government.






                share|improve this answer





















                • 6





                  "Most but not all UK citizens want to leave" is an extraordinarily misleading and likely factually inaccurate statement, but sure.

                  – Carcer
                  yesterday






                • 3





                  @Carcer, Leave won the vote. Getting the referendum result into a single child-friendly sentence does not allow for many qualifiers, like people who did not show up because they thought everything would be all right, or people who voted because they believed extravagant claims.

                  – o.m.
                  yesterday






                • 3





                  It's probably safer to say "most but not all UK citizens wanted to leave", or even "most people who voted in the referendum 3 years ago wanted to leave". It's very hard to say what they want now, and even harder to say whether they want a deal, what kind of deal, etc, and that's an important part of the current situation.

                  – IMSoP
                  yesterday











                • @IMSoP, better now?

                  – o.m.
                  yesterday














                5












                5








                5







                I can't do it in two child-proof sentences, but I'll try to come close.




                1. The EU is a union of 28 states which has been granted some but not all powers of a central government by the member states.

                2. UK voters decided to leave the EU. This is complicated because the EU had so many powers for so long and the UK voters told the UK government to negotiate the details with the remaining EU states.

                3. If the UK government and the remaining EU states cannot agree on the details of leaving, the UK will leave without a deal. That means medical drugs approved in the EU are no longer legal to use in the UK and the other way around, UK citizen cannot travel and work in the EU without a visa and the other way around, UK banks cannot sell products in the EU and the other way around. (There are emergency measures to handle some of this. UK and EU citizens won't be deported March 30th even if there is no deal and no extension.)

                4. When UK voters decided to leave, they had a simple question with a "yes" or "no" answer. Probably most did not want to leave without a deal.

                5. The UK parliament cannot agree on if and how to leave, but they do not want to leave without a deal. The UK parliament has a complicated question with many possible answers, and no answer has a majority for it.


                Eleven sentences, not entirely child-proof, and admittedly biased against the current UK parliament and government.






                share|improve this answer















                I can't do it in two child-proof sentences, but I'll try to come close.




                1. The EU is a union of 28 states which has been granted some but not all powers of a central government by the member states.

                2. UK voters decided to leave the EU. This is complicated because the EU had so many powers for so long and the UK voters told the UK government to negotiate the details with the remaining EU states.

                3. If the UK government and the remaining EU states cannot agree on the details of leaving, the UK will leave without a deal. That means medical drugs approved in the EU are no longer legal to use in the UK and the other way around, UK citizen cannot travel and work in the EU without a visa and the other way around, UK banks cannot sell products in the EU and the other way around. (There are emergency measures to handle some of this. UK and EU citizens won't be deported March 30th even if there is no deal and no extension.)

                4. When UK voters decided to leave, they had a simple question with a "yes" or "no" answer. Probably most did not want to leave without a deal.

                5. The UK parliament cannot agree on if and how to leave, but they do not want to leave without a deal. The UK parliament has a complicated question with many possible answers, and no answer has a majority for it.


                Eleven sentences, not entirely child-proof, and admittedly biased against the current UK parliament and government.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited yesterday









                phoog

                3,14911223




                3,14911223










                answered yesterday









                o.m.o.m.

                10.1k11840




                10.1k11840








                • 6





                  "Most but not all UK citizens want to leave" is an extraordinarily misleading and likely factually inaccurate statement, but sure.

                  – Carcer
                  yesterday






                • 3





                  @Carcer, Leave won the vote. Getting the referendum result into a single child-friendly sentence does not allow for many qualifiers, like people who did not show up because they thought everything would be all right, or people who voted because they believed extravagant claims.

                  – o.m.
                  yesterday






                • 3





                  It's probably safer to say "most but not all UK citizens wanted to leave", or even "most people who voted in the referendum 3 years ago wanted to leave". It's very hard to say what they want now, and even harder to say whether they want a deal, what kind of deal, etc, and that's an important part of the current situation.

                  – IMSoP
                  yesterday











                • @IMSoP, better now?

                  – o.m.
                  yesterday














                • 6





                  "Most but not all UK citizens want to leave" is an extraordinarily misleading and likely factually inaccurate statement, but sure.

                  – Carcer
                  yesterday






                • 3





                  @Carcer, Leave won the vote. Getting the referendum result into a single child-friendly sentence does not allow for many qualifiers, like people who did not show up because they thought everything would be all right, or people who voted because they believed extravagant claims.

                  – o.m.
                  yesterday






                • 3





                  It's probably safer to say "most but not all UK citizens wanted to leave", or even "most people who voted in the referendum 3 years ago wanted to leave". It's very hard to say what they want now, and even harder to say whether they want a deal, what kind of deal, etc, and that's an important part of the current situation.

                  – IMSoP
                  yesterday











                • @IMSoP, better now?

                  – o.m.
                  yesterday








                6




                6





                "Most but not all UK citizens want to leave" is an extraordinarily misleading and likely factually inaccurate statement, but sure.

                – Carcer
                yesterday





                "Most but not all UK citizens want to leave" is an extraordinarily misleading and likely factually inaccurate statement, but sure.

                – Carcer
                yesterday




                3




                3





                @Carcer, Leave won the vote. Getting the referendum result into a single child-friendly sentence does not allow for many qualifiers, like people who did not show up because they thought everything would be all right, or people who voted because they believed extravagant claims.

                – o.m.
                yesterday





                @Carcer, Leave won the vote. Getting the referendum result into a single child-friendly sentence does not allow for many qualifiers, like people who did not show up because they thought everything would be all right, or people who voted because they believed extravagant claims.

                – o.m.
                yesterday




                3




                3





                It's probably safer to say "most but not all UK citizens wanted to leave", or even "most people who voted in the referendum 3 years ago wanted to leave". It's very hard to say what they want now, and even harder to say whether they want a deal, what kind of deal, etc, and that's an important part of the current situation.

                – IMSoP
                yesterday





                It's probably safer to say "most but not all UK citizens wanted to leave", or even "most people who voted in the referendum 3 years ago wanted to leave". It's very hard to say what they want now, and even harder to say whether they want a deal, what kind of deal, etc, and that's an important part of the current situation.

                – IMSoP
                yesterday













                @IMSoP, better now?

                – o.m.
                yesterday





                @IMSoP, better now?

                – o.m.
                yesterday











                3














                All the countries in the EU agree to 'four freedoms' of the Single European Market:




                • free movement of goods

                • free movement of capital

                • free movement of people

                • freedom to establish and provide services


                Part of this involves writing EU law into the law of each, individual country (which Brexiteers view as losing national soverignty)



                In return, each country can trade tariff free inside the Single Market, and can trade with non-EU countries under the favourable terms of EU trade deals and can benefit from EU subsidies



                To answer your questions:




                1. Leavng the EU involves invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. After that the UK could just walk away. But it would then have to trade with the EU and other countries under very unfavourable terms. It would cost the UK a huge amount of money and it would take years (the EU/Canada deal took seven years) to negotiate trade deals to replace the EU external deals. The reason Brexit is taking so long is because all but a few extreme leavers want a relationship with the EU that doesn't damage the British economy


                Also, Britain will have an open border with the EU between Ireland and Northern Ireland. If there is no deal and the EU imposes the standard tariffs on goods/visa for people, how will that open border be maintained, taxes collected, visas checked etc? Part of the Good Friday Agreement that lead to the IRA and UDF ceasefires is that there is no hard border between the UK and Eire




                1. Concrete steps have been taken to leave the EU. There is agreement between Theresa May on all these things but there are many different factions in Parliament that want either a slightly different deal or no deal at all. The EU Withdrawal Bill has moved most EU regulation into British Law so that there are no loopholes for criminals and others to exploit after leaving


                2. Theresa May wants to leave the EU under the terms of her deal but she needs this passed into law by Parliament. Most MPs want different deals. Many want to make life easier be retaining some of the four freedoms, and/or joining EFTA and/or staying in the customs union similar to non-EU countries like Norway and Switzerland. Or even not leaving at all



                Currently, British law states that we will leave the EU with no deal. This is viewed as an economic catastrophe by most - too many pages to link to here, just google 'no deal economic catastrophe'






                share|improve this answer



















                • 1





                  Can you reference the exact paragraph in the 'Good Friday Agreement' which states that there should be no 'hard border' between the UK & Eire?

                  – DrMcCleod
                  yesterday











                • @DrMcLeod - There isn't a single paragraph, the requirement for an open border pervades the whole document and is implicit in the wording of most of the statements in the Belfast Agreement

                  – Dave Gremlin
                  yesterday






                • 1





                  @DrMcCleod: law.stackexchange.com/questions/29255/…

                  – chirlu
                  yesterday






                • 1





                  @DaveGremlin Thanks, but I have read the GFA, and I could not see anything in it which specified that an open border between the UK and Eire should exist. If you could indicate the passages or sections that convinced you otherwise, I would be grateful. (Text here: gov.uk/government/publications/the-belfast-agreement)

                  – DrMcCleod
                  yesterday






                • 1





                  The UK and Ireland already have independent immigration policies despite the open border, and both of them opted out of the EU's integrated immigration policy (a.k.a. the Schengen area), so immigration checkpoints and visa checks are unlikely to appear at the Irish border. They haven't existed there since 1923, long before the EU was first conceived. Also Norway and Switzerland are not in the customs union; Switzerland isn't even in the EEA.

                  – phoog
                  yesterday


















                3














                All the countries in the EU agree to 'four freedoms' of the Single European Market:




                • free movement of goods

                • free movement of capital

                • free movement of people

                • freedom to establish and provide services


                Part of this involves writing EU law into the law of each, individual country (which Brexiteers view as losing national soverignty)



                In return, each country can trade tariff free inside the Single Market, and can trade with non-EU countries under the favourable terms of EU trade deals and can benefit from EU subsidies



                To answer your questions:




                1. Leavng the EU involves invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. After that the UK could just walk away. But it would then have to trade with the EU and other countries under very unfavourable terms. It would cost the UK a huge amount of money and it would take years (the EU/Canada deal took seven years) to negotiate trade deals to replace the EU external deals. The reason Brexit is taking so long is because all but a few extreme leavers want a relationship with the EU that doesn't damage the British economy


                Also, Britain will have an open border with the EU between Ireland and Northern Ireland. If there is no deal and the EU imposes the standard tariffs on goods/visa for people, how will that open border be maintained, taxes collected, visas checked etc? Part of the Good Friday Agreement that lead to the IRA and UDF ceasefires is that there is no hard border between the UK and Eire




                1. Concrete steps have been taken to leave the EU. There is agreement between Theresa May on all these things but there are many different factions in Parliament that want either a slightly different deal or no deal at all. The EU Withdrawal Bill has moved most EU regulation into British Law so that there are no loopholes for criminals and others to exploit after leaving


                2. Theresa May wants to leave the EU under the terms of her deal but she needs this passed into law by Parliament. Most MPs want different deals. Many want to make life easier be retaining some of the four freedoms, and/or joining EFTA and/or staying in the customs union similar to non-EU countries like Norway and Switzerland. Or even not leaving at all



                Currently, British law states that we will leave the EU with no deal. This is viewed as an economic catastrophe by most - too many pages to link to here, just google 'no deal economic catastrophe'






                share|improve this answer



















                • 1





                  Can you reference the exact paragraph in the 'Good Friday Agreement' which states that there should be no 'hard border' between the UK & Eire?

                  – DrMcCleod
                  yesterday











                • @DrMcLeod - There isn't a single paragraph, the requirement for an open border pervades the whole document and is implicit in the wording of most of the statements in the Belfast Agreement

                  – Dave Gremlin
                  yesterday






                • 1





                  @DrMcCleod: law.stackexchange.com/questions/29255/…

                  – chirlu
                  yesterday






                • 1





                  @DaveGremlin Thanks, but I have read the GFA, and I could not see anything in it which specified that an open border between the UK and Eire should exist. If you could indicate the passages or sections that convinced you otherwise, I would be grateful. (Text here: gov.uk/government/publications/the-belfast-agreement)

                  – DrMcCleod
                  yesterday






                • 1





                  The UK and Ireland already have independent immigration policies despite the open border, and both of them opted out of the EU's integrated immigration policy (a.k.a. the Schengen area), so immigration checkpoints and visa checks are unlikely to appear at the Irish border. They haven't existed there since 1923, long before the EU was first conceived. Also Norway and Switzerland are not in the customs union; Switzerland isn't even in the EEA.

                  – phoog
                  yesterday
















                3












                3








                3







                All the countries in the EU agree to 'four freedoms' of the Single European Market:




                • free movement of goods

                • free movement of capital

                • free movement of people

                • freedom to establish and provide services


                Part of this involves writing EU law into the law of each, individual country (which Brexiteers view as losing national soverignty)



                In return, each country can trade tariff free inside the Single Market, and can trade with non-EU countries under the favourable terms of EU trade deals and can benefit from EU subsidies



                To answer your questions:




                1. Leavng the EU involves invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. After that the UK could just walk away. But it would then have to trade with the EU and other countries under very unfavourable terms. It would cost the UK a huge amount of money and it would take years (the EU/Canada deal took seven years) to negotiate trade deals to replace the EU external deals. The reason Brexit is taking so long is because all but a few extreme leavers want a relationship with the EU that doesn't damage the British economy


                Also, Britain will have an open border with the EU between Ireland and Northern Ireland. If there is no deal and the EU imposes the standard tariffs on goods/visa for people, how will that open border be maintained, taxes collected, visas checked etc? Part of the Good Friday Agreement that lead to the IRA and UDF ceasefires is that there is no hard border between the UK and Eire




                1. Concrete steps have been taken to leave the EU. There is agreement between Theresa May on all these things but there are many different factions in Parliament that want either a slightly different deal or no deal at all. The EU Withdrawal Bill has moved most EU regulation into British Law so that there are no loopholes for criminals and others to exploit after leaving


                2. Theresa May wants to leave the EU under the terms of her deal but she needs this passed into law by Parliament. Most MPs want different deals. Many want to make life easier be retaining some of the four freedoms, and/or joining EFTA and/or staying in the customs union similar to non-EU countries like Norway and Switzerland. Or even not leaving at all



                Currently, British law states that we will leave the EU with no deal. This is viewed as an economic catastrophe by most - too many pages to link to here, just google 'no deal economic catastrophe'






                share|improve this answer













                All the countries in the EU agree to 'four freedoms' of the Single European Market:




                • free movement of goods

                • free movement of capital

                • free movement of people

                • freedom to establish and provide services


                Part of this involves writing EU law into the law of each, individual country (which Brexiteers view as losing national soverignty)



                In return, each country can trade tariff free inside the Single Market, and can trade with non-EU countries under the favourable terms of EU trade deals and can benefit from EU subsidies



                To answer your questions:




                1. Leavng the EU involves invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. After that the UK could just walk away. But it would then have to trade with the EU and other countries under very unfavourable terms. It would cost the UK a huge amount of money and it would take years (the EU/Canada deal took seven years) to negotiate trade deals to replace the EU external deals. The reason Brexit is taking so long is because all but a few extreme leavers want a relationship with the EU that doesn't damage the British economy


                Also, Britain will have an open border with the EU between Ireland and Northern Ireland. If there is no deal and the EU imposes the standard tariffs on goods/visa for people, how will that open border be maintained, taxes collected, visas checked etc? Part of the Good Friday Agreement that lead to the IRA and UDF ceasefires is that there is no hard border between the UK and Eire




                1. Concrete steps have been taken to leave the EU. There is agreement between Theresa May on all these things but there are many different factions in Parliament that want either a slightly different deal or no deal at all. The EU Withdrawal Bill has moved most EU regulation into British Law so that there are no loopholes for criminals and others to exploit after leaving


                2. Theresa May wants to leave the EU under the terms of her deal but she needs this passed into law by Parliament. Most MPs want different deals. Many want to make life easier be retaining some of the four freedoms, and/or joining EFTA and/or staying in the customs union similar to non-EU countries like Norway and Switzerland. Or even not leaving at all



                Currently, British law states that we will leave the EU with no deal. This is viewed as an economic catastrophe by most - too many pages to link to here, just google 'no deal economic catastrophe'







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered yesterday









                Dave GremlinDave Gremlin

                5377




                5377








                • 1





                  Can you reference the exact paragraph in the 'Good Friday Agreement' which states that there should be no 'hard border' between the UK & Eire?

                  – DrMcCleod
                  yesterday











                • @DrMcLeod - There isn't a single paragraph, the requirement for an open border pervades the whole document and is implicit in the wording of most of the statements in the Belfast Agreement

                  – Dave Gremlin
                  yesterday






                • 1





                  @DrMcCleod: law.stackexchange.com/questions/29255/…

                  – chirlu
                  yesterday






                • 1





                  @DaveGremlin Thanks, but I have read the GFA, and I could not see anything in it which specified that an open border between the UK and Eire should exist. If you could indicate the passages or sections that convinced you otherwise, I would be grateful. (Text here: gov.uk/government/publications/the-belfast-agreement)

                  – DrMcCleod
                  yesterday






                • 1





                  The UK and Ireland already have independent immigration policies despite the open border, and both of them opted out of the EU's integrated immigration policy (a.k.a. the Schengen area), so immigration checkpoints and visa checks are unlikely to appear at the Irish border. They haven't existed there since 1923, long before the EU was first conceived. Also Norway and Switzerland are not in the customs union; Switzerland isn't even in the EEA.

                  – phoog
                  yesterday
















                • 1





                  Can you reference the exact paragraph in the 'Good Friday Agreement' which states that there should be no 'hard border' between the UK & Eire?

                  – DrMcCleod
                  yesterday











                • @DrMcLeod - There isn't a single paragraph, the requirement for an open border pervades the whole document and is implicit in the wording of most of the statements in the Belfast Agreement

                  – Dave Gremlin
                  yesterday






                • 1





                  @DrMcCleod: law.stackexchange.com/questions/29255/…

                  – chirlu
                  yesterday






                • 1





                  @DaveGremlin Thanks, but I have read the GFA, and I could not see anything in it which specified that an open border between the UK and Eire should exist. If you could indicate the passages or sections that convinced you otherwise, I would be grateful. (Text here: gov.uk/government/publications/the-belfast-agreement)

                  – DrMcCleod
                  yesterday






                • 1





                  The UK and Ireland already have independent immigration policies despite the open border, and both of them opted out of the EU's integrated immigration policy (a.k.a. the Schengen area), so immigration checkpoints and visa checks are unlikely to appear at the Irish border. They haven't existed there since 1923, long before the EU was first conceived. Also Norway and Switzerland are not in the customs union; Switzerland isn't even in the EEA.

                  – phoog
                  yesterday










                1




                1





                Can you reference the exact paragraph in the 'Good Friday Agreement' which states that there should be no 'hard border' between the UK & Eire?

                – DrMcCleod
                yesterday





                Can you reference the exact paragraph in the 'Good Friday Agreement' which states that there should be no 'hard border' between the UK & Eire?

                – DrMcCleod
                yesterday













                @DrMcLeod - There isn't a single paragraph, the requirement for an open border pervades the whole document and is implicit in the wording of most of the statements in the Belfast Agreement

                – Dave Gremlin
                yesterday





                @DrMcLeod - There isn't a single paragraph, the requirement for an open border pervades the whole document and is implicit in the wording of most of the statements in the Belfast Agreement

                – Dave Gremlin
                yesterday




                1




                1





                @DrMcCleod: law.stackexchange.com/questions/29255/…

                – chirlu
                yesterday





                @DrMcCleod: law.stackexchange.com/questions/29255/…

                – chirlu
                yesterday




                1




                1





                @DaveGremlin Thanks, but I have read the GFA, and I could not see anything in it which specified that an open border between the UK and Eire should exist. If you could indicate the passages or sections that convinced you otherwise, I would be grateful. (Text here: gov.uk/government/publications/the-belfast-agreement)

                – DrMcCleod
                yesterday





                @DaveGremlin Thanks, but I have read the GFA, and I could not see anything in it which specified that an open border between the UK and Eire should exist. If you could indicate the passages or sections that convinced you otherwise, I would be grateful. (Text here: gov.uk/government/publications/the-belfast-agreement)

                – DrMcCleod
                yesterday




                1




                1





                The UK and Ireland already have independent immigration policies despite the open border, and both of them opted out of the EU's integrated immigration policy (a.k.a. the Schengen area), so immigration checkpoints and visa checks are unlikely to appear at the Irish border. They haven't existed there since 1923, long before the EU was first conceived. Also Norway and Switzerland are not in the customs union; Switzerland isn't even in the EEA.

                – phoog
                yesterday







                The UK and Ireland already have independent immigration policies despite the open border, and both of them opted out of the EU's integrated immigration policy (a.k.a. the Schengen area), so immigration checkpoints and visa checks are unlikely to appear at the Irish border. They haven't existed there since 1923, long before the EU was first conceived. Also Norway and Switzerland are not in the customs union; Switzerland isn't even in the EEA.

                – phoog
                yesterday













                3














                Many good answers already, but the Irish border is a particular sticking point that is not much addressed in existing answers. I will try to explain the Irish border issue in simple terms (but "a few sentences" is impossible). First some history.



                Partition of Ireland



                The UK has a little brother Ireland. For hundreds of years, the UK was in charge of Ireland (and in fact of a large part of the world, because they had conquered those countries with their powerful army, this is why the US speaks English today). About 100 years ago Ireland declared the independent Republic of Ireland (they had wanted independence much longer). But in Northern Ireland, many people (a bit more than half) felt more British than Irish (because their great-grandparents had (been) moved from Britain, partly to suppress Irish independence) and this part did not become independent. Ireland was, and remains, split. This is called the Partition of Ireland.



                Belfast agreement / Good Friday agreement



                Many Irish people were very unhappy with this, and there was a war. To resolve this war, the UK and the Republic of Ireland agreed to have similar rules. This way, people in all of Ireland could cross between the Republic and Northern Ireland without noticing the border. Both the ones who wanted (nationalists, republicans) and who did not want independence (unionists, loyalists) were OK with that (at least OK enough to mostly stop fighting). They could have very similar rules because they were together in the EU. This agreement is called the Belfast agreement or the Good Friday Agreement.



                Backstop



                Now the UK will (most likely) leave the EU but the Republic of Ireland will not. This means the rules will not be similar anymore, and the border between the two will become more visible. Many people in Ireland, in particular republicans in Northern Ireland, are very unhappy about that. They might cross the border twice a day or even have a farm that exists on both sides. The EU and the republicans wants that Northern Ireland rules stay close to Republic of Ireland rules (so Northern Ireland stays a little in the EU), but the unionists (and many in the UK government) want that Northern Ireland rules stay close to British rules. It is not possible to do both (unless all of UK stays close to EU rules, which is like staying a bit in the EU). The current UK government needs the support from the unionists, so they have to keep them happy. The backstop is a part of the proposed EU-UK temporary agreement (that Parliament rejected) to keep Northern Ireland close to the EU, in case the EU and the UK do not agree a good long term agreement.





                Therefore, for the Irish border question alone, it is impossible for the UK to leave the EU while keeping both nationalists and unionists happy.





                In the above, I have simplified many things. The history of Ireland is a bit more complicated. Many unionists also do not want a hard border in Ireland (there are two major unionist parties which are split on this issue). The main opposition in the UK (the Labour Party) proposes a solution that they claim avoids the need for a backstop, but not all are sure this is accurate. Some Irish republicans believe Brexit may be a chance to undo the partition of Ireland and make Ireland one independent country (the idea is that people are so upset with Brexit that they rather join Ireland and EU than stay in a Brexit UK), but that may be wishful thinking.



                Overall, Brexit is very complicated and cannot be explained in a few child-proof sentences.






                share|improve this answer






























                  3














                  Many good answers already, but the Irish border is a particular sticking point that is not much addressed in existing answers. I will try to explain the Irish border issue in simple terms (but "a few sentences" is impossible). First some history.



                  Partition of Ireland



                  The UK has a little brother Ireland. For hundreds of years, the UK was in charge of Ireland (and in fact of a large part of the world, because they had conquered those countries with their powerful army, this is why the US speaks English today). About 100 years ago Ireland declared the independent Republic of Ireland (they had wanted independence much longer). But in Northern Ireland, many people (a bit more than half) felt more British than Irish (because their great-grandparents had (been) moved from Britain, partly to suppress Irish independence) and this part did not become independent. Ireland was, and remains, split. This is called the Partition of Ireland.



                  Belfast agreement / Good Friday agreement



                  Many Irish people were very unhappy with this, and there was a war. To resolve this war, the UK and the Republic of Ireland agreed to have similar rules. This way, people in all of Ireland could cross between the Republic and Northern Ireland without noticing the border. Both the ones who wanted (nationalists, republicans) and who did not want independence (unionists, loyalists) were OK with that (at least OK enough to mostly stop fighting). They could have very similar rules because they were together in the EU. This agreement is called the Belfast agreement or the Good Friday Agreement.



                  Backstop



                  Now the UK will (most likely) leave the EU but the Republic of Ireland will not. This means the rules will not be similar anymore, and the border between the two will become more visible. Many people in Ireland, in particular republicans in Northern Ireland, are very unhappy about that. They might cross the border twice a day or even have a farm that exists on both sides. The EU and the republicans wants that Northern Ireland rules stay close to Republic of Ireland rules (so Northern Ireland stays a little in the EU), but the unionists (and many in the UK government) want that Northern Ireland rules stay close to British rules. It is not possible to do both (unless all of UK stays close to EU rules, which is like staying a bit in the EU). The current UK government needs the support from the unionists, so they have to keep them happy. The backstop is a part of the proposed EU-UK temporary agreement (that Parliament rejected) to keep Northern Ireland close to the EU, in case the EU and the UK do not agree a good long term agreement.





                  Therefore, for the Irish border question alone, it is impossible for the UK to leave the EU while keeping both nationalists and unionists happy.





                  In the above, I have simplified many things. The history of Ireland is a bit more complicated. Many unionists also do not want a hard border in Ireland (there are two major unionist parties which are split on this issue). The main opposition in the UK (the Labour Party) proposes a solution that they claim avoids the need for a backstop, but not all are sure this is accurate. Some Irish republicans believe Brexit may be a chance to undo the partition of Ireland and make Ireland one independent country (the idea is that people are so upset with Brexit that they rather join Ireland and EU than stay in a Brexit UK), but that may be wishful thinking.



                  Overall, Brexit is very complicated and cannot be explained in a few child-proof sentences.






                  share|improve this answer




























                    3












                    3








                    3







                    Many good answers already, but the Irish border is a particular sticking point that is not much addressed in existing answers. I will try to explain the Irish border issue in simple terms (but "a few sentences" is impossible). First some history.



                    Partition of Ireland



                    The UK has a little brother Ireland. For hundreds of years, the UK was in charge of Ireland (and in fact of a large part of the world, because they had conquered those countries with their powerful army, this is why the US speaks English today). About 100 years ago Ireland declared the independent Republic of Ireland (they had wanted independence much longer). But in Northern Ireland, many people (a bit more than half) felt more British than Irish (because their great-grandparents had (been) moved from Britain, partly to suppress Irish independence) and this part did not become independent. Ireland was, and remains, split. This is called the Partition of Ireland.



                    Belfast agreement / Good Friday agreement



                    Many Irish people were very unhappy with this, and there was a war. To resolve this war, the UK and the Republic of Ireland agreed to have similar rules. This way, people in all of Ireland could cross between the Republic and Northern Ireland without noticing the border. Both the ones who wanted (nationalists, republicans) and who did not want independence (unionists, loyalists) were OK with that (at least OK enough to mostly stop fighting). They could have very similar rules because they were together in the EU. This agreement is called the Belfast agreement or the Good Friday Agreement.



                    Backstop



                    Now the UK will (most likely) leave the EU but the Republic of Ireland will not. This means the rules will not be similar anymore, and the border between the two will become more visible. Many people in Ireland, in particular republicans in Northern Ireland, are very unhappy about that. They might cross the border twice a day or even have a farm that exists on both sides. The EU and the republicans wants that Northern Ireland rules stay close to Republic of Ireland rules (so Northern Ireland stays a little in the EU), but the unionists (and many in the UK government) want that Northern Ireland rules stay close to British rules. It is not possible to do both (unless all of UK stays close to EU rules, which is like staying a bit in the EU). The current UK government needs the support from the unionists, so they have to keep them happy. The backstop is a part of the proposed EU-UK temporary agreement (that Parliament rejected) to keep Northern Ireland close to the EU, in case the EU and the UK do not agree a good long term agreement.





                    Therefore, for the Irish border question alone, it is impossible for the UK to leave the EU while keeping both nationalists and unionists happy.





                    In the above, I have simplified many things. The history of Ireland is a bit more complicated. Many unionists also do not want a hard border in Ireland (there are two major unionist parties which are split on this issue). The main opposition in the UK (the Labour Party) proposes a solution that they claim avoids the need for a backstop, but not all are sure this is accurate. Some Irish republicans believe Brexit may be a chance to undo the partition of Ireland and make Ireland one independent country (the idea is that people are so upset with Brexit that they rather join Ireland and EU than stay in a Brexit UK), but that may be wishful thinking.



                    Overall, Brexit is very complicated and cannot be explained in a few child-proof sentences.






                    share|improve this answer















                    Many good answers already, but the Irish border is a particular sticking point that is not much addressed in existing answers. I will try to explain the Irish border issue in simple terms (but "a few sentences" is impossible). First some history.



                    Partition of Ireland



                    The UK has a little brother Ireland. For hundreds of years, the UK was in charge of Ireland (and in fact of a large part of the world, because they had conquered those countries with their powerful army, this is why the US speaks English today). About 100 years ago Ireland declared the independent Republic of Ireland (they had wanted independence much longer). But in Northern Ireland, many people (a bit more than half) felt more British than Irish (because their great-grandparents had (been) moved from Britain, partly to suppress Irish independence) and this part did not become independent. Ireland was, and remains, split. This is called the Partition of Ireland.



                    Belfast agreement / Good Friday agreement



                    Many Irish people were very unhappy with this, and there was a war. To resolve this war, the UK and the Republic of Ireland agreed to have similar rules. This way, people in all of Ireland could cross between the Republic and Northern Ireland without noticing the border. Both the ones who wanted (nationalists, republicans) and who did not want independence (unionists, loyalists) were OK with that (at least OK enough to mostly stop fighting). They could have very similar rules because they were together in the EU. This agreement is called the Belfast agreement or the Good Friday Agreement.



                    Backstop



                    Now the UK will (most likely) leave the EU but the Republic of Ireland will not. This means the rules will not be similar anymore, and the border between the two will become more visible. Many people in Ireland, in particular republicans in Northern Ireland, are very unhappy about that. They might cross the border twice a day or even have a farm that exists on both sides. The EU and the republicans wants that Northern Ireland rules stay close to Republic of Ireland rules (so Northern Ireland stays a little in the EU), but the unionists (and many in the UK government) want that Northern Ireland rules stay close to British rules. It is not possible to do both (unless all of UK stays close to EU rules, which is like staying a bit in the EU). The current UK government needs the support from the unionists, so they have to keep them happy. The backstop is a part of the proposed EU-UK temporary agreement (that Parliament rejected) to keep Northern Ireland close to the EU, in case the EU and the UK do not agree a good long term agreement.





                    Therefore, for the Irish border question alone, it is impossible for the UK to leave the EU while keeping both nationalists and unionists happy.





                    In the above, I have simplified many things. The history of Ireland is a bit more complicated. Many unionists also do not want a hard border in Ireland (there are two major unionist parties which are split on this issue). The main opposition in the UK (the Labour Party) proposes a solution that they claim avoids the need for a backstop, but not all are sure this is accurate. Some Irish republicans believe Brexit may be a chance to undo the partition of Ireland and make Ireland one independent country (the idea is that people are so upset with Brexit that they rather join Ireland and EU than stay in a Brexit UK), but that may be wishful thinking.



                    Overall, Brexit is very complicated and cannot be explained in a few child-proof sentences.







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited 15 hours ago

























                    answered 19 hours ago









                    gerritgerrit

                    19.7k881179




                    19.7k881179























                        0














                        If it wasn't for the Irish border question the negotiations with EU would have been over long ago and the PM's leave deal would have been adopted. As it is there is no way UK can accept the backstop in the Withdrawal Agreement which will result in UK being tied to EU for ever just to ensure there is never a hard border. When the No Hard Border decision was made at the end of the Troubles no one said then what about if UK wants to leave the EU? The referendum in 2016 didn't say do you want to leave but btw you won't be able to because the Irish border must remain unmanned. Someone though was aware of this when the WA was being drawn up and they made sure there was an unbreakable clause in there to enforce it, without any regard as to how badly it would affect UK,s ambitions to leave.






                        share|improve this answer








                        New contributor




                        portmanteau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.
















                        • 2





                          This isn't quite right though, there are ways to leave the EU without needing a hard border in Ireland, but Theresa May explicitly ruled them out at the beginning of the process, while mumbling vaguely about "technological solutions". They could have gunned for a more Norway-like option where the UK stays in the customs union or something similar (which many brexiteers actually campaigned on, using Norway and Switzerland as examples of successful non-EU countries), but they ruled that out at the beginning and have made basically zero progress on the Irish issue for the last 2 years since then.

                          – Some_Guy
                          yesterday








                        • 2





                          The OP probably has no idea what you're talking about with the backstop and so forth. He's from the US that's why he's asking for elementary explanations.

                          – Fizz
                          yesterday











                        • @Some_Guy Norway is not in the customs union, though it is in the single market. That's why the option of staying in the customs union is called "Norway plus."

                          – phoog
                          yesterday













                        • There were several 'deal breakers' in her bloated deal. The media decided to harp on about the backstop, and that's certainly warranted, but they just as easily have focused on the £39 billion (plus), fishing rights, continued adherence to the EJC. Any one of those sunk this deal. In combination.... well, the two largests defeats in all of British parliamentary history. And maybe the largest of all coming up. But I agree with Fizz, I'm not sure too many people outside of the UK are going really understand any of those topics except maybe the money (and even that's a bit complicated).

                          – ouflak
                          21 hours ago


















                        0














                        If it wasn't for the Irish border question the negotiations with EU would have been over long ago and the PM's leave deal would have been adopted. As it is there is no way UK can accept the backstop in the Withdrawal Agreement which will result in UK being tied to EU for ever just to ensure there is never a hard border. When the No Hard Border decision was made at the end of the Troubles no one said then what about if UK wants to leave the EU? The referendum in 2016 didn't say do you want to leave but btw you won't be able to because the Irish border must remain unmanned. Someone though was aware of this when the WA was being drawn up and they made sure there was an unbreakable clause in there to enforce it, without any regard as to how badly it would affect UK,s ambitions to leave.






                        share|improve this answer








                        New contributor




                        portmanteau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.
















                        • 2





                          This isn't quite right though, there are ways to leave the EU without needing a hard border in Ireland, but Theresa May explicitly ruled them out at the beginning of the process, while mumbling vaguely about "technological solutions". They could have gunned for a more Norway-like option where the UK stays in the customs union or something similar (which many brexiteers actually campaigned on, using Norway and Switzerland as examples of successful non-EU countries), but they ruled that out at the beginning and have made basically zero progress on the Irish issue for the last 2 years since then.

                          – Some_Guy
                          yesterday








                        • 2





                          The OP probably has no idea what you're talking about with the backstop and so forth. He's from the US that's why he's asking for elementary explanations.

                          – Fizz
                          yesterday











                        • @Some_Guy Norway is not in the customs union, though it is in the single market. That's why the option of staying in the customs union is called "Norway plus."

                          – phoog
                          yesterday













                        • There were several 'deal breakers' in her bloated deal. The media decided to harp on about the backstop, and that's certainly warranted, but they just as easily have focused on the £39 billion (plus), fishing rights, continued adherence to the EJC. Any one of those sunk this deal. In combination.... well, the two largests defeats in all of British parliamentary history. And maybe the largest of all coming up. But I agree with Fizz, I'm not sure too many people outside of the UK are going really understand any of those topics except maybe the money (and even that's a bit complicated).

                          – ouflak
                          21 hours ago
















                        0












                        0








                        0







                        If it wasn't for the Irish border question the negotiations with EU would have been over long ago and the PM's leave deal would have been adopted. As it is there is no way UK can accept the backstop in the Withdrawal Agreement which will result in UK being tied to EU for ever just to ensure there is never a hard border. When the No Hard Border decision was made at the end of the Troubles no one said then what about if UK wants to leave the EU? The referendum in 2016 didn't say do you want to leave but btw you won't be able to because the Irish border must remain unmanned. Someone though was aware of this when the WA was being drawn up and they made sure there was an unbreakable clause in there to enforce it, without any regard as to how badly it would affect UK,s ambitions to leave.






                        share|improve this answer








                        New contributor




                        portmanteau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.










                        If it wasn't for the Irish border question the negotiations with EU would have been over long ago and the PM's leave deal would have been adopted. As it is there is no way UK can accept the backstop in the Withdrawal Agreement which will result in UK being tied to EU for ever just to ensure there is never a hard border. When the No Hard Border decision was made at the end of the Troubles no one said then what about if UK wants to leave the EU? The referendum in 2016 didn't say do you want to leave but btw you won't be able to because the Irish border must remain unmanned. Someone though was aware of this when the WA was being drawn up and they made sure there was an unbreakable clause in there to enforce it, without any regard as to how badly it would affect UK,s ambitions to leave.







                        share|improve this answer








                        New contributor




                        portmanteau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.









                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer






                        New contributor




                        portmanteau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.









                        answered yesterday









                        portmanteauportmanteau

                        91




                        91




                        New contributor




                        portmanteau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.





                        New contributor





                        portmanteau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.






                        portmanteau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.








                        • 2





                          This isn't quite right though, there are ways to leave the EU without needing a hard border in Ireland, but Theresa May explicitly ruled them out at the beginning of the process, while mumbling vaguely about "technological solutions". They could have gunned for a more Norway-like option where the UK stays in the customs union or something similar (which many brexiteers actually campaigned on, using Norway and Switzerland as examples of successful non-EU countries), but they ruled that out at the beginning and have made basically zero progress on the Irish issue for the last 2 years since then.

                          – Some_Guy
                          yesterday








                        • 2





                          The OP probably has no idea what you're talking about with the backstop and so forth. He's from the US that's why he's asking for elementary explanations.

                          – Fizz
                          yesterday











                        • @Some_Guy Norway is not in the customs union, though it is in the single market. That's why the option of staying in the customs union is called "Norway plus."

                          – phoog
                          yesterday













                        • There were several 'deal breakers' in her bloated deal. The media decided to harp on about the backstop, and that's certainly warranted, but they just as easily have focused on the £39 billion (plus), fishing rights, continued adherence to the EJC. Any one of those sunk this deal. In combination.... well, the two largests defeats in all of British parliamentary history. And maybe the largest of all coming up. But I agree with Fizz, I'm not sure too many people outside of the UK are going really understand any of those topics except maybe the money (and even that's a bit complicated).

                          – ouflak
                          21 hours ago
















                        • 2





                          This isn't quite right though, there are ways to leave the EU without needing a hard border in Ireland, but Theresa May explicitly ruled them out at the beginning of the process, while mumbling vaguely about "technological solutions". They could have gunned for a more Norway-like option where the UK stays in the customs union or something similar (which many brexiteers actually campaigned on, using Norway and Switzerland as examples of successful non-EU countries), but they ruled that out at the beginning and have made basically zero progress on the Irish issue for the last 2 years since then.

                          – Some_Guy
                          yesterday








                        • 2





                          The OP probably has no idea what you're talking about with the backstop and so forth. He's from the US that's why he's asking for elementary explanations.

                          – Fizz
                          yesterday











                        • @Some_Guy Norway is not in the customs union, though it is in the single market. That's why the option of staying in the customs union is called "Norway plus."

                          – phoog
                          yesterday













                        • There were several 'deal breakers' in her bloated deal. The media decided to harp on about the backstop, and that's certainly warranted, but they just as easily have focused on the £39 billion (plus), fishing rights, continued adherence to the EJC. Any one of those sunk this deal. In combination.... well, the two largests defeats in all of British parliamentary history. And maybe the largest of all coming up. But I agree with Fizz, I'm not sure too many people outside of the UK are going really understand any of those topics except maybe the money (and even that's a bit complicated).

                          – ouflak
                          21 hours ago










                        2




                        2





                        This isn't quite right though, there are ways to leave the EU without needing a hard border in Ireland, but Theresa May explicitly ruled them out at the beginning of the process, while mumbling vaguely about "technological solutions". They could have gunned for a more Norway-like option where the UK stays in the customs union or something similar (which many brexiteers actually campaigned on, using Norway and Switzerland as examples of successful non-EU countries), but they ruled that out at the beginning and have made basically zero progress on the Irish issue for the last 2 years since then.

                        – Some_Guy
                        yesterday







                        This isn't quite right though, there are ways to leave the EU without needing a hard border in Ireland, but Theresa May explicitly ruled them out at the beginning of the process, while mumbling vaguely about "technological solutions". They could have gunned for a more Norway-like option where the UK stays in the customs union or something similar (which many brexiteers actually campaigned on, using Norway and Switzerland as examples of successful non-EU countries), but they ruled that out at the beginning and have made basically zero progress on the Irish issue for the last 2 years since then.

                        – Some_Guy
                        yesterday






                        2




                        2





                        The OP probably has no idea what you're talking about with the backstop and so forth. He's from the US that's why he's asking for elementary explanations.

                        – Fizz
                        yesterday





                        The OP probably has no idea what you're talking about with the backstop and so forth. He's from the US that's why he's asking for elementary explanations.

                        – Fizz
                        yesterday













                        @Some_Guy Norway is not in the customs union, though it is in the single market. That's why the option of staying in the customs union is called "Norway plus."

                        – phoog
                        yesterday







                        @Some_Guy Norway is not in the customs union, though it is in the single market. That's why the option of staying in the customs union is called "Norway plus."

                        – phoog
                        yesterday















                        There were several 'deal breakers' in her bloated deal. The media decided to harp on about the backstop, and that's certainly warranted, but they just as easily have focused on the £39 billion (plus), fishing rights, continued adherence to the EJC. Any one of those sunk this deal. In combination.... well, the two largests defeats in all of British parliamentary history. And maybe the largest of all coming up. But I agree with Fizz, I'm not sure too many people outside of the UK are going really understand any of those topics except maybe the money (and even that's a bit complicated).

                        – ouflak
                        21 hours ago







                        There were several 'deal breakers' in her bloated deal. The media decided to harp on about the backstop, and that's certainly warranted, but they just as easily have focused on the £39 billion (plus), fishing rights, continued adherence to the EJC. Any one of those sunk this deal. In combination.... well, the two largests defeats in all of British parliamentary history. And maybe the largest of all coming up. But I agree with Fizz, I'm not sure too many people outside of the UK are going really understand any of those topics except maybe the money (and even that's a bit complicated).

                        – ouflak
                        21 hours ago













                        0














                        To succinctly answer your questions (1), (2), (3) (not necessarily in this order):




                        • PM May wants out of the EU, but she wants out on the terms of the draft deal she negotiated with the EU... which is lacking support in her own Parliament (but the MPs couldn't decide to replace her as PM either; why that is is an interesting separate issue).


                        • May and the UK Parliament did trigger (years ago) all the legal steps needed for the UK to crash out the EU with no deal... in the next couple of weeks (a little vague because extensions to the deadline are possible).


                        • A no-deal exit is however not the Brexit that most UK MPs want, according a recent non-binding vote they took, which is basically the only thing they could agree on recently--that is what kind of Brexit they don't want. So basically their hope-for-the-best thinking (triggering article 50, which has a deadline to finish exit negotiations) is coming back to bite them in the sense that they'll (collectively) get their least favorite version of Brexit... by default.



                        For more background why no-deal doesn't look good (to most MPs), let me try to explain a few aspects of Brexit. Yes, I'll be oversimplifying by necessity and I'll make [possibly faulty] analogies with the US because the OP hails from there:



                        Getting out of the EU just by article 50 (which was triggered by PM May two years ago, following a [non-binding] UK referendum) without any deal is like scrapping most of your trade agreements (big understatement). Even if the EU were just a trade agreement, it's often preferable to change one rather than scrap it. Witness Trump's actions in this respect: he scrapped the non-yet-going TPP, but for most other, NAFTA, etc., he renegotiated them with some but not huge changes.



                        The trouble is that there's no consensus in the UK parliament what a replacement deal should look like, even though PM May did hammer a draft deal with the EU. Compare with NAFTA's replacement having trouble in Congress. Trump gave up threatening to just scrap NAFTA. Back to EU, the looming problem is that Article 50's legal two-year deadline to reach a deal means there's an automatic scrap about to happen. A short extension to the Article 50 default-no-deal-deadline has been mutually agreed with the EU, but the EU also got tired of the indecision in the UK parliament as well.



                        But the EU is not just a trade deal; in a certain way it, is was also a part of a peace agreement in Northern Ireland. The de-escalation in Northern Ireland (Good Friday Agreement) was largely possible because both the UK and Ireland were part of the EU's single market, so the two countries could make invisible the border that the Northern Irish republicans fought against (the latter because they advocated a union of Northern Ireland with Ireland). So dropping out of the EU is also like scrapping a part of peace deal. Imagine a US state [legally] seceding from the rest of the Union, while a part of secessionist state's population threatens with civil unrest or even domestic terrorism if a border is actually put in place after the secession...



                        So the draft deal May agreed to "gave in" to the troublesome guys [Northern Ireland republicans] by allowing Northern Ireland to stay in a customs' union (so no visible border) with the EU until someone can figure out a better solution (so it's a open-ended concession/delay); this is the [in]famous "backstop". But this backstop pissed off the "take back control of our borders" guys from her own party coalition (including a Northern Ireland unionist party--unionist here meaning they want [to stay in] union with the UK--that is actually critical to keeping May's government in power and also to the ratification of a deal). I'm vastly oversimplifying the terms of the draft deal, but you can search here for more questions on the backstop and the intricate details of the customs union it entails; a part of the rules would extend to the whole of UK, another sticking point for some MPs ("take back control of our laws"). The very fact that different rules would apply to Northern Ireland and rest of UK is a red line for the Northern Ireland unionist parties.






                        share|improve this answer


























                        • Not only the single market, but the customs union.

                          – phoog
                          yesterday
















                        0














                        To succinctly answer your questions (1), (2), (3) (not necessarily in this order):




                        • PM May wants out of the EU, but she wants out on the terms of the draft deal she negotiated with the EU... which is lacking support in her own Parliament (but the MPs couldn't decide to replace her as PM either; why that is is an interesting separate issue).


                        • May and the UK Parliament did trigger (years ago) all the legal steps needed for the UK to crash out the EU with no deal... in the next couple of weeks (a little vague because extensions to the deadline are possible).


                        • A no-deal exit is however not the Brexit that most UK MPs want, according a recent non-binding vote they took, which is basically the only thing they could agree on recently--that is what kind of Brexit they don't want. So basically their hope-for-the-best thinking (triggering article 50, which has a deadline to finish exit negotiations) is coming back to bite them in the sense that they'll (collectively) get their least favorite version of Brexit... by default.



                        For more background why no-deal doesn't look good (to most MPs), let me try to explain a few aspects of Brexit. Yes, I'll be oversimplifying by necessity and I'll make [possibly faulty] analogies with the US because the OP hails from there:



                        Getting out of the EU just by article 50 (which was triggered by PM May two years ago, following a [non-binding] UK referendum) without any deal is like scrapping most of your trade agreements (big understatement). Even if the EU were just a trade agreement, it's often preferable to change one rather than scrap it. Witness Trump's actions in this respect: he scrapped the non-yet-going TPP, but for most other, NAFTA, etc., he renegotiated them with some but not huge changes.



                        The trouble is that there's no consensus in the UK parliament what a replacement deal should look like, even though PM May did hammer a draft deal with the EU. Compare with NAFTA's replacement having trouble in Congress. Trump gave up threatening to just scrap NAFTA. Back to EU, the looming problem is that Article 50's legal two-year deadline to reach a deal means there's an automatic scrap about to happen. A short extension to the Article 50 default-no-deal-deadline has been mutually agreed with the EU, but the EU also got tired of the indecision in the UK parliament as well.



                        But the EU is not just a trade deal; in a certain way it, is was also a part of a peace agreement in Northern Ireland. The de-escalation in Northern Ireland (Good Friday Agreement) was largely possible because both the UK and Ireland were part of the EU's single market, so the two countries could make invisible the border that the Northern Irish republicans fought against (the latter because they advocated a union of Northern Ireland with Ireland). So dropping out of the EU is also like scrapping a part of peace deal. Imagine a US state [legally] seceding from the rest of the Union, while a part of secessionist state's population threatens with civil unrest or even domestic terrorism if a border is actually put in place after the secession...



                        So the draft deal May agreed to "gave in" to the troublesome guys [Northern Ireland republicans] by allowing Northern Ireland to stay in a customs' union (so no visible border) with the EU until someone can figure out a better solution (so it's a open-ended concession/delay); this is the [in]famous "backstop". But this backstop pissed off the "take back control of our borders" guys from her own party coalition (including a Northern Ireland unionist party--unionist here meaning they want [to stay in] union with the UK--that is actually critical to keeping May's government in power and also to the ratification of a deal). I'm vastly oversimplifying the terms of the draft deal, but you can search here for more questions on the backstop and the intricate details of the customs union it entails; a part of the rules would extend to the whole of UK, another sticking point for some MPs ("take back control of our laws"). The very fact that different rules would apply to Northern Ireland and rest of UK is a red line for the Northern Ireland unionist parties.






                        share|improve this answer


























                        • Not only the single market, but the customs union.

                          – phoog
                          yesterday














                        0












                        0








                        0







                        To succinctly answer your questions (1), (2), (3) (not necessarily in this order):




                        • PM May wants out of the EU, but she wants out on the terms of the draft deal she negotiated with the EU... which is lacking support in her own Parliament (but the MPs couldn't decide to replace her as PM either; why that is is an interesting separate issue).


                        • May and the UK Parliament did trigger (years ago) all the legal steps needed for the UK to crash out the EU with no deal... in the next couple of weeks (a little vague because extensions to the deadline are possible).


                        • A no-deal exit is however not the Brexit that most UK MPs want, according a recent non-binding vote they took, which is basically the only thing they could agree on recently--that is what kind of Brexit they don't want. So basically their hope-for-the-best thinking (triggering article 50, which has a deadline to finish exit negotiations) is coming back to bite them in the sense that they'll (collectively) get their least favorite version of Brexit... by default.



                        For more background why no-deal doesn't look good (to most MPs), let me try to explain a few aspects of Brexit. Yes, I'll be oversimplifying by necessity and I'll make [possibly faulty] analogies with the US because the OP hails from there:



                        Getting out of the EU just by article 50 (which was triggered by PM May two years ago, following a [non-binding] UK referendum) without any deal is like scrapping most of your trade agreements (big understatement). Even if the EU were just a trade agreement, it's often preferable to change one rather than scrap it. Witness Trump's actions in this respect: he scrapped the non-yet-going TPP, but for most other, NAFTA, etc., he renegotiated them with some but not huge changes.



                        The trouble is that there's no consensus in the UK parliament what a replacement deal should look like, even though PM May did hammer a draft deal with the EU. Compare with NAFTA's replacement having trouble in Congress. Trump gave up threatening to just scrap NAFTA. Back to EU, the looming problem is that Article 50's legal two-year deadline to reach a deal means there's an automatic scrap about to happen. A short extension to the Article 50 default-no-deal-deadline has been mutually agreed with the EU, but the EU also got tired of the indecision in the UK parliament as well.



                        But the EU is not just a trade deal; in a certain way it, is was also a part of a peace agreement in Northern Ireland. The de-escalation in Northern Ireland (Good Friday Agreement) was largely possible because both the UK and Ireland were part of the EU's single market, so the two countries could make invisible the border that the Northern Irish republicans fought against (the latter because they advocated a union of Northern Ireland with Ireland). So dropping out of the EU is also like scrapping a part of peace deal. Imagine a US state [legally] seceding from the rest of the Union, while a part of secessionist state's population threatens with civil unrest or even domestic terrorism if a border is actually put in place after the secession...



                        So the draft deal May agreed to "gave in" to the troublesome guys [Northern Ireland republicans] by allowing Northern Ireland to stay in a customs' union (so no visible border) with the EU until someone can figure out a better solution (so it's a open-ended concession/delay); this is the [in]famous "backstop". But this backstop pissed off the "take back control of our borders" guys from her own party coalition (including a Northern Ireland unionist party--unionist here meaning they want [to stay in] union with the UK--that is actually critical to keeping May's government in power and also to the ratification of a deal). I'm vastly oversimplifying the terms of the draft deal, but you can search here for more questions on the backstop and the intricate details of the customs union it entails; a part of the rules would extend to the whole of UK, another sticking point for some MPs ("take back control of our laws"). The very fact that different rules would apply to Northern Ireland and rest of UK is a red line for the Northern Ireland unionist parties.






                        share|improve this answer















                        To succinctly answer your questions (1), (2), (3) (not necessarily in this order):




                        • PM May wants out of the EU, but she wants out on the terms of the draft deal she negotiated with the EU... which is lacking support in her own Parliament (but the MPs couldn't decide to replace her as PM either; why that is is an interesting separate issue).


                        • May and the UK Parliament did trigger (years ago) all the legal steps needed for the UK to crash out the EU with no deal... in the next couple of weeks (a little vague because extensions to the deadline are possible).


                        • A no-deal exit is however not the Brexit that most UK MPs want, according a recent non-binding vote they took, which is basically the only thing they could agree on recently--that is what kind of Brexit they don't want. So basically their hope-for-the-best thinking (triggering article 50, which has a deadline to finish exit negotiations) is coming back to bite them in the sense that they'll (collectively) get their least favorite version of Brexit... by default.



                        For more background why no-deal doesn't look good (to most MPs), let me try to explain a few aspects of Brexit. Yes, I'll be oversimplifying by necessity and I'll make [possibly faulty] analogies with the US because the OP hails from there:



                        Getting out of the EU just by article 50 (which was triggered by PM May two years ago, following a [non-binding] UK referendum) without any deal is like scrapping most of your trade agreements (big understatement). Even if the EU were just a trade agreement, it's often preferable to change one rather than scrap it. Witness Trump's actions in this respect: he scrapped the non-yet-going TPP, but for most other, NAFTA, etc., he renegotiated them with some but not huge changes.



                        The trouble is that there's no consensus in the UK parliament what a replacement deal should look like, even though PM May did hammer a draft deal with the EU. Compare with NAFTA's replacement having trouble in Congress. Trump gave up threatening to just scrap NAFTA. Back to EU, the looming problem is that Article 50's legal two-year deadline to reach a deal means there's an automatic scrap about to happen. A short extension to the Article 50 default-no-deal-deadline has been mutually agreed with the EU, but the EU also got tired of the indecision in the UK parliament as well.



                        But the EU is not just a trade deal; in a certain way it, is was also a part of a peace agreement in Northern Ireland. The de-escalation in Northern Ireland (Good Friday Agreement) was largely possible because both the UK and Ireland were part of the EU's single market, so the two countries could make invisible the border that the Northern Irish republicans fought against (the latter because they advocated a union of Northern Ireland with Ireland). So dropping out of the EU is also like scrapping a part of peace deal. Imagine a US state [legally] seceding from the rest of the Union, while a part of secessionist state's population threatens with civil unrest or even domestic terrorism if a border is actually put in place after the secession...



                        So the draft deal May agreed to "gave in" to the troublesome guys [Northern Ireland republicans] by allowing Northern Ireland to stay in a customs' union (so no visible border) with the EU until someone can figure out a better solution (so it's a open-ended concession/delay); this is the [in]famous "backstop". But this backstop pissed off the "take back control of our borders" guys from her own party coalition (including a Northern Ireland unionist party--unionist here meaning they want [to stay in] union with the UK--that is actually critical to keeping May's government in power and also to the ratification of a deal). I'm vastly oversimplifying the terms of the draft deal, but you can search here for more questions on the backstop and the intricate details of the customs union it entails; a part of the rules would extend to the whole of UK, another sticking point for some MPs ("take back control of our laws"). The very fact that different rules would apply to Northern Ireland and rest of UK is a red line for the Northern Ireland unionist parties.







                        share|improve this answer














                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer








                        edited yesterday

























                        answered yesterday









                        FizzFizz

                        11.8k12976




                        11.8k12976













                        • Not only the single market, but the customs union.

                          – phoog
                          yesterday



















                        • Not only the single market, but the customs union.

                          – phoog
                          yesterday

















                        Not only the single market, but the customs union.

                        – phoog
                        yesterday





                        Not only the single market, but the customs union.

                        – phoog
                        yesterday











                        -1














                        Here are my two cents:




                        1. To leave the EU, which is essentially a complex trade bloc, the UK had to trigger a part of the EU treaty called Article 50. By triggering this article, the UK could leave the EU immediatly, hence no longer being subject to various regulations (but also excluded from the free trade zone), or take time up to 2 years to negotiate an exit deal.


                        2. The Brexit referendum was on June 23, 2016. 7 months after the Brexit result (on March 29, 2017), the UK finally triggered article 50, starting the 2 year countdown. In that time Theresa May's government has supposedly been negotiating an exit deal while various agencies and civilian businesses prepared themselves for the exit.



                        3. Theresa May finally brought her deal to the Parliament for a vote in January 2019. As it turns out, it was an absolutely horrible deal and the Parliament rejected it by the largest margin EVER for a sitting government's proposal. The main points of concern were:




                          • The border with Ireland and Northern Ireland. Ireland is independent and part of the EU, but a hard border would have to be avoided to prevent civil unrest (i.e the Troubles). May's deal would have essentially removed Northen Ireland from the UK.

                          • Gibraltar. Gibraltar is a UK protectorate and has been for hundreds of years. However, due to its proximity to Spain it is very connected to Spain culturally. May's deal would have essentially given control of Gibraltar to Spain.

                          • EU membership fees. The UK owes fees to the EU totalling £39Billion for 2019. May's deal would have essentially given up all that money (which is HUGE leverage for the UK) with nothing in return in terms of trade concessions.




                        So now, almost 3 years after the referendum the UK government is still "figuring thinga out". In my mind that is an utter failure.






                        share|improve this answer










                        New contributor




                        Agustus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                        • Cyprus is a very good example of what happens when a non-EU country has a dispute with an EU-country. EU is on the side of the member here Greece, which blocks Turkey who really, really wants to be in the EU! UK leaving the EU will essentially mean giving up Gibraltar to please the EU member Spain.

                          – Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
                          15 hours ago


















                        -1














                        Here are my two cents:




                        1. To leave the EU, which is essentially a complex trade bloc, the UK had to trigger a part of the EU treaty called Article 50. By triggering this article, the UK could leave the EU immediatly, hence no longer being subject to various regulations (but also excluded from the free trade zone), or take time up to 2 years to negotiate an exit deal.


                        2. The Brexit referendum was on June 23, 2016. 7 months after the Brexit result (on March 29, 2017), the UK finally triggered article 50, starting the 2 year countdown. In that time Theresa May's government has supposedly been negotiating an exit deal while various agencies and civilian businesses prepared themselves for the exit.



                        3. Theresa May finally brought her deal to the Parliament for a vote in January 2019. As it turns out, it was an absolutely horrible deal and the Parliament rejected it by the largest margin EVER for a sitting government's proposal. The main points of concern were:




                          • The border with Ireland and Northern Ireland. Ireland is independent and part of the EU, but a hard border would have to be avoided to prevent civil unrest (i.e the Troubles). May's deal would have essentially removed Northen Ireland from the UK.

                          • Gibraltar. Gibraltar is a UK protectorate and has been for hundreds of years. However, due to its proximity to Spain it is very connected to Spain culturally. May's deal would have essentially given control of Gibraltar to Spain.

                          • EU membership fees. The UK owes fees to the EU totalling £39Billion for 2019. May's deal would have essentially given up all that money (which is HUGE leverage for the UK) with nothing in return in terms of trade concessions.




                        So now, almost 3 years after the referendum the UK government is still "figuring thinga out". In my mind that is an utter failure.






                        share|improve this answer










                        New contributor




                        Agustus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                        • Cyprus is a very good example of what happens when a non-EU country has a dispute with an EU-country. EU is on the side of the member here Greece, which blocks Turkey who really, really wants to be in the EU! UK leaving the EU will essentially mean giving up Gibraltar to please the EU member Spain.

                          – Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
                          15 hours ago
















                        -1












                        -1








                        -1







                        Here are my two cents:




                        1. To leave the EU, which is essentially a complex trade bloc, the UK had to trigger a part of the EU treaty called Article 50. By triggering this article, the UK could leave the EU immediatly, hence no longer being subject to various regulations (but also excluded from the free trade zone), or take time up to 2 years to negotiate an exit deal.


                        2. The Brexit referendum was on June 23, 2016. 7 months after the Brexit result (on March 29, 2017), the UK finally triggered article 50, starting the 2 year countdown. In that time Theresa May's government has supposedly been negotiating an exit deal while various agencies and civilian businesses prepared themselves for the exit.



                        3. Theresa May finally brought her deal to the Parliament for a vote in January 2019. As it turns out, it was an absolutely horrible deal and the Parliament rejected it by the largest margin EVER for a sitting government's proposal. The main points of concern were:




                          • The border with Ireland and Northern Ireland. Ireland is independent and part of the EU, but a hard border would have to be avoided to prevent civil unrest (i.e the Troubles). May's deal would have essentially removed Northen Ireland from the UK.

                          • Gibraltar. Gibraltar is a UK protectorate and has been for hundreds of years. However, due to its proximity to Spain it is very connected to Spain culturally. May's deal would have essentially given control of Gibraltar to Spain.

                          • EU membership fees. The UK owes fees to the EU totalling £39Billion for 2019. May's deal would have essentially given up all that money (which is HUGE leverage for the UK) with nothing in return in terms of trade concessions.




                        So now, almost 3 years after the referendum the UK government is still "figuring thinga out". In my mind that is an utter failure.






                        share|improve this answer










                        New contributor




                        Agustus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.










                        Here are my two cents:




                        1. To leave the EU, which is essentially a complex trade bloc, the UK had to trigger a part of the EU treaty called Article 50. By triggering this article, the UK could leave the EU immediatly, hence no longer being subject to various regulations (but also excluded from the free trade zone), or take time up to 2 years to negotiate an exit deal.


                        2. The Brexit referendum was on June 23, 2016. 7 months after the Brexit result (on March 29, 2017), the UK finally triggered article 50, starting the 2 year countdown. In that time Theresa May's government has supposedly been negotiating an exit deal while various agencies and civilian businesses prepared themselves for the exit.



                        3. Theresa May finally brought her deal to the Parliament for a vote in January 2019. As it turns out, it was an absolutely horrible deal and the Parliament rejected it by the largest margin EVER for a sitting government's proposal. The main points of concern were:




                          • The border with Ireland and Northern Ireland. Ireland is independent and part of the EU, but a hard border would have to be avoided to prevent civil unrest (i.e the Troubles). May's deal would have essentially removed Northen Ireland from the UK.

                          • Gibraltar. Gibraltar is a UK protectorate and has been for hundreds of years. However, due to its proximity to Spain it is very connected to Spain culturally. May's deal would have essentially given control of Gibraltar to Spain.

                          • EU membership fees. The UK owes fees to the EU totalling £39Billion for 2019. May's deal would have essentially given up all that money (which is HUGE leverage for the UK) with nothing in return in terms of trade concessions.




                        So now, almost 3 years after the referendum the UK government is still "figuring thinga out". In my mind that is an utter failure.







                        share|improve this answer










                        New contributor




                        Agustus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.









                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer








                        edited 10 hours ago









                        sondra.kinsey

                        290110




                        290110






                        New contributor




                        Agustus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.









                        answered yesterday









                        AgustusAgustus

                        746




                        746




                        New contributor




                        Agustus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.





                        New contributor





                        Agustus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.






                        Agustus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.













                        • Cyprus is a very good example of what happens when a non-EU country has a dispute with an EU-country. EU is on the side of the member here Greece, which blocks Turkey who really, really wants to be in the EU! UK leaving the EU will essentially mean giving up Gibraltar to please the EU member Spain.

                          – Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
                          15 hours ago





















                        • Cyprus is a very good example of what happens when a non-EU country has a dispute with an EU-country. EU is on the side of the member here Greece, which blocks Turkey who really, really wants to be in the EU! UK leaving the EU will essentially mean giving up Gibraltar to please the EU member Spain.

                          – Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
                          15 hours ago



















                        Cyprus is a very good example of what happens when a non-EU country has a dispute with an EU-country. EU is on the side of the member here Greece, which blocks Turkey who really, really wants to be in the EU! UK leaving the EU will essentially mean giving up Gibraltar to please the EU member Spain.

                        – Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
                        15 hours ago







                        Cyprus is a very good example of what happens when a non-EU country has a dispute with an EU-country. EU is on the side of the member here Greece, which blocks Turkey who really, really wants to be in the EU! UK leaving the EU will essentially mean giving up Gibraltar to please the EU member Spain.

                        – Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
                        15 hours ago













                        -4














                        A hundred years ago, there was a war because some of the countries in Europe wanted to control the other countries. The people who started this war lost, and Britain fought with the side that won.



                        Later on, one of the countries which lost the first war tried again and started a second war. They lost that war too, and Britain again fought with the side that won.



                        After the second war, people tried to create a system where a third war would be impossible. But other people realized they didn't need to drop bombs and kill people to get control over other countries, so they used that system to set up rules to stop people in other countries buying and selling anything, unless they followed the rules they invented.



                        We are now getting close to the end of this third "war" to control Europe, but it's not yet clear who will win it, and who will lose.






                        share|improve this answer




























                          -4














                          A hundred years ago, there was a war because some of the countries in Europe wanted to control the other countries. The people who started this war lost, and Britain fought with the side that won.



                          Later on, one of the countries which lost the first war tried again and started a second war. They lost that war too, and Britain again fought with the side that won.



                          After the second war, people tried to create a system where a third war would be impossible. But other people realized they didn't need to drop bombs and kill people to get control over other countries, so they used that system to set up rules to stop people in other countries buying and selling anything, unless they followed the rules they invented.



                          We are now getting close to the end of this third "war" to control Europe, but it's not yet clear who will win it, and who will lose.






                          share|improve this answer


























                            -4












                            -4








                            -4







                            A hundred years ago, there was a war because some of the countries in Europe wanted to control the other countries. The people who started this war lost, and Britain fought with the side that won.



                            Later on, one of the countries which lost the first war tried again and started a second war. They lost that war too, and Britain again fought with the side that won.



                            After the second war, people tried to create a system where a third war would be impossible. But other people realized they didn't need to drop bombs and kill people to get control over other countries, so they used that system to set up rules to stop people in other countries buying and selling anything, unless they followed the rules they invented.



                            We are now getting close to the end of this third "war" to control Europe, but it's not yet clear who will win it, and who will lose.






                            share|improve this answer













                            A hundred years ago, there was a war because some of the countries in Europe wanted to control the other countries. The people who started this war lost, and Britain fought with the side that won.



                            Later on, one of the countries which lost the first war tried again and started a second war. They lost that war too, and Britain again fought with the side that won.



                            After the second war, people tried to create a system where a third war would be impossible. But other people realized they didn't need to drop bombs and kill people to get control over other countries, so they used that system to set up rules to stop people in other countries buying and selling anything, unless they followed the rules they invented.



                            We are now getting close to the end of this third "war" to control Europe, but it's not yet clear who will win it, and who will lose.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered yesterday









                            alephzeroalephzero

                            70648




                            70648

















                                protected by Philipp yesterday



                                Thank you for your interest in this question.
                                Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



                                Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

                                He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                                Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029