In addition to the facts below Johnson's "do or die" exit on 31st October will also inflict the following.
- loss of the European Health Insurance Card,
- the need for international driving licences & green cards,
- the end of the pet passport system,
- the loss of protection against rip off bank & phone roaming charges, and
- travellers losing the right to automatic compensation for delayed or cancelled flights?
What has to happen for Britain to leave without a deal on October 31?
There are no legislative steps that need to be taken by MPs to trigger a no-deal Brexit. It is the default option. Under the European Withdrawal Act passed by parliament last year, Britain will automatically leave the EU on October 31 unless the government changes the date (which it did in March) or revokes Article 50.
For Britain to remain a member after that, European leaders will need to unanimously agree a request for an extension and parliament and the new prime minister would have to agree to make it.
Despite some sabre-rattling from the likes of President Macron of France, most EU leaders are determined not to be the ones who get the blame for a no-deal Brexit so are likely to offer an extension. That may change, but the mood music coming out of European capitals and Brussels suggests that even a new Brexiteer prime minister is unlikely to make the EU want to kick Britain out without any kind of deal.
Does Boris Johnson’s ‘do or die’ pledge make no deal more likely?
Yes, but it is not inevitable, even if Mr Johnson wins the leadership election. The biggest obstacle is parliament, where a clear majority of MPs are opposed to a no-deal Brexit. The difficulty for them is how they can stop it.
Normally only the government can bring in the legislation that would be needed to alter the date in the Withdrawal Act. In the run up to March, MPs successfully used parliamentary procedure to request an extension but with Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement dead it is now harder to see a mechanism that they could use.
It is also possible that MPs could trigger an election with a vote of no confidence. However given how long it would take to organise such an election so that a new parliament was up and running before October 31, such a motion would have to be tabled days after parliament returns in September.
Could the Speaker intervene to prevent a no-deal exit?
John Bercow, who has huge discretion in interpreting parliamentary rules, has suggested that it would be possible for MPs to decisively impose their will on a no-deal prime minister.
However, even if they get the opportunity it is not necessarily certain that MPs will take it. This month a cross-party group’s attempt to take control of the parliamentary timetable, to introduce legislation to make no-deal more difficult, failed. In part this was because ten Labour MPs voted with the government while others abstained, showing the unity problems within the party.
The truth is that parliament could legislate to require a prime minister to request a further extension to the deadline, but it would be difficult to get a majority of MPs to force him to accept whatever Brussels offered in return.
Some of Mr Johnson’s supporters believe that if he becomes prime minister and parliament does try to dictate the terms of Brexit, he could still find a loophole enabling him to take Britain out on October 31 if he wanted to.
What is proroguing parliament and could it be used to force no deal?
Until Brexit proroguing parliament was a constitutional formality — and a historical quirk — used to separate different sessions of parliament. Historically it was the prerogative of the Queen but it is now exercised by the prime minister through the privy council. In effect it means dissolving parliament, usually for only a few days, until it is officially restarted by the Queen at the state opening of parliament. Such a dissolution is normally an uncontroversial formality.
However some Brexiteers, including the former leadership contender Dominic Raab, have suggested that the procedure could be used to suspend parliament and prevent MPs from legislating against a no-deal Brexit. A Brexiteer prime minister would simply suspend parliament until after the October 31 deadline.
Such a move is considered to be the parliamentary equivalent of a nuclear option and would trigger a constitutional crisis and drag the Queen into the Brexit debate. She could not object, so would be forced to give tacit consent. The Speaker has warned that he would vehemently oppose this. Meanwhile Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, has publicly warned against putting the Queen in such a position.
If parliament was prorogued, could the Speaker reconvene it elsewhere?
He could but such a move would arguably symbolise a constitutional crisis on a scale that has not been seen since the English civil war ended in 1651.
What happens if the prime minister wants no deal but parliament blocks it?
One option would be to make trouble in Brussels in the hope that EU leaders decide to kick Britain out of the bloc when they meet for a summit in October, before the deadline. There are only a few pieces of European business that the UK could disrupt on its own, but it could side with a minority to block what the majority wants to do. A new prime minister could also threaten to disrupt future EU budget negotiations.
Under Article 50 it would take only one other member state to block an extension to Britain’s membership. While it is unlikely that the EU would refuse an extension, it is possible.
What could parliament do if the EU refused to give Britain an extension?
Until the October 31 deadline Britain still has the right unilaterally to revoke Article 50 and remain a member of the EU. So it is possible that parliament could be faced with a binary choice: either leave the European Union with no deal or do not leave at all.
How are MPs likely to respond to such a choice?
It is hard to predict. There is a clear majority against no deal but just as clear a majority against revocation. It is difficult to imagine MPs unilaterally overriding the referendum result, which is why the possibility of a second referendum remains so attractive to many. However, should it come down to a binary choice it would seem likely that more MPs would back no deal than a revocation of Article 50.
What happens to our trading arrangements under a no-deal exit?
Britain would trade with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules. As far as Brussels is concerned this would mean the UK paying the same import tariffs as other countries that have no trade deal with the EU. This can be as much as 15 per cent on some agricultural products.
Britain would, of course, be free to set its own tariff schedule on imports coming into the country and these could be set low to avoid inflation. However, under WTO rules the UK would have to apply the same tariff rates to all countries until and unless there was a formal trade agreement in place. That means Britain could not set a lower tariff rate for European imports than for those of other countries.
Brexiteers accept that it would be necessary in the medium term to get around the table with the EU to agree a trade deal that is in both sides’ interests. However, the history of such deals suggests that this would be a lengthy process, taking up to five years or even longer. During this interregnum, opponents of no deal warn that many businesses that rely on frictionless trade within the EU would leave Britain and consolidate their operations in mainland Europe. Brexiteers counter that UK businesses would adapt to the new situation, prioritising export markets outside the EU that in the longer term might provide greater prosperity.
What is Article 24 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade?
Under WTO rules, states can use Article 24 to establish free-trade agreements and customs unions as an exception to the “most favoured nation” principle, which states that WTO members cannot give preferential treatment to products and services originating from one trading partner over others.
To benefit from Article 24, there must be an agreement between the two WTO members on eliminating duties and other restrictive regulations on substantially all trade. Therefore, Article 24 would not allow the UK to maintain tariff-free trade with the EU in the absence of a negotiated agreement unless the EU also signed up to do the same and so far it has said it will not.
What would be the impact of trading on WTO terms?
The most detailed estimate was calculated by the government using a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model with 57 sectors, which concluded that a WTO scenario would cut gross domestic product in Britain by about 8 percentage points over the next 15 years. That is not to say that GDP would actually fall — over the period it would grow by 17 per cent compared with growth of about 25 per cent if Britain simply remained within the EU.
This model takes into account deregulation and trade deals with other countries and assumes the UK implements a relatively restrictive immigration policy after Brexit.
How disruptive would a no-deal Brexit really be?
There are two big uncertainties. The first is how Brussels and individual EU member states react. They may waive new rules to avoid short-term disruption to their interests, at least for an initial period. Or they could either collectively or individually apply them, leading to a long period of confusion and potential disruption.
The other, often overlooked, factor is that Britain preparing for no deal is only one factor in the equation. Many businesses have not yet fully prepared for the prospect of new customs and regulatory barriers that could spring up overnight. There is still time before October for this to happen, but many at the moment are reluctant to sink costs into preparing for a new regulatory regime that they do not want and think is unlikely to happen.
Who would be hit worse by no deal, Britain or the EU?
The gross domestic product of the rest of the European Union is almost six times as big as Britain’s and its population almost seven times as big. So although the total cost to the EU would be bigger, the cost per person in Britain would be higher.
If we crash out do we save the estimated £39bn cost of the divorce bill?
Brexiteers say the estimated £39 billion due under the withdrawal agreement would not be paid in the event of a no-deal exit, to soften the economic impact of crashing out. The EU says that if the UK withdrew the financial settlement it would veto the start of trade talks.
Brussels could also take Britain to court in the Hague to recover at least part of the money, although this would take years to resolve and the outcome would be uncertain. The amount Britain would end up paying is unclear, but it is unlikely that it would be nothing, as some Brexiteers have claimed.
Source: The Times newspaper 26 June 19
This message was last edited by Mickyfinn on 26/06/2019.