A short thread about Brexit and why I am so critical of it: not so much the idea, but the process by which it has happened, which betrays both those who voted remain *and* leave. I do not think Brexit will make the UK better off, but that is not the focus here. /1
The winner-takes-all approach of first past the post has infused Brexit in a way which ignores (a) almost half the electorate (b) Scotland and NI (c) the different shades of what 'leave' means. The present situation bears little resemblance to what was promised in the ref. /2
For a state to *join* the EU takes 10+ years, even if they already have a democratic system, market-based economy and level of integration with the EU. The efforts taken over a long period of time are huge: regular checking, national consultations, parliament scrutiny etc. /3
It is never the case that a state decides on a whim or comes down to last-minute frantic negotiations on key matters. Information campaigns about what becoming a member means, preparing business etc are crucial. There are always problems and questions over readiness but ... /4
If joining takes so long (even just in terms of adapting the law), then a good rule of thumb is that leaving the EU and untangling integration according to an agreed plan should take around the same length of time. /5
In the UK, we have a manifesto commitment in 2015, a referendum in 2016, and then the 2-year Art 50 process triggered before the UK had any idea what it wanted. And there is still no plan: Global Britain remains a slogan, and ending free movement the only product of it. /6
The 2 year period of Art 50 was never meant to be a carefully-calculated time period for withdrawal, hence the in-built possibility of extension. And as a leaving state, it has to be the UK that decides what it wants *not* the other way around. /7
Unlike other countries, where there is a carefully thought-out process before any major constitutional change *before* a vote, the UK has hurtled into a process whilst trying to work out what it wants to be - and systematically change the whole basis of its economy. /8
And this is why I am critical: the UK might mitigate some of the damage, and be prepared for it, if it had acted according to a plan for the before, during and after of Brexit. Instead, the UK has left the EU and now has only 2 months (in the middle of a pandemic) to act. /9
Brinkmanship has no place here: at stake is the UK's short and long-term future and relationship with the continent whilst 50 years of integration are undone. Instead, we are promised 'quick' fixes whilst business and citizens are urged to prepare for an uncertain future. /10
And at stake is not some abstract idea of what the UK should be like. It is about the real changes that should have been planned over a period of years, and ideally before a referendum. Brexit was not over on 31 Jan 2020 and will not be over on 31 December 2020 either. /END

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Prof Paul James Cardwell

Prof Paul James Cardwell Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Cardwell_PJ

14 Oct
I'm overwhelmed by the response to my previous thread on Brexit, so thank you to all. As requested, some thoughts on the (mostly legal) way to join/rejoin the EU. This is not an argument that the UK should but an attempt to inform the debate about how it *might* happen. /1
First, Art 50 no longer applies. The UK left on 31.1.2020 and there is no 'reversing' of this process: the UK is now a third country, even though it is still in a transition period until the end of 2020. /2
So, the process of joining follows Article 49 TEU, which looks like this. There is no special procedure for ex-members to rejoin provided for in either Article 49 or Article 50 TEU. /3 Image
Read 24 tweets
4 Oct
Of course he is playing to the crowd, and blaming Brussels always works, even after leaving the EU. But this is an assertion without evidence. /1 reuters.com/article/uk-bri…
The UK became so used to seeking exceptions that it almost felt that whenever a treaty negotiation came up, the UK would have to object to something otherwise be accused of selling out. /2
The UK was the only country that was granted opt-outs to things it didn’t want (Schengen, euro etc) and had these written into the Treaty. /3
Read 10 tweets
18 Sep
This is not a surprise when an official policy of a 'hostil environment' has been in place for 10 years. Short anecdote about the visuals to the outside world who may have little hands-on insight into this world: /1 theguardian.com/politics/2020/…
A few weeks ago I walked past a UK Visa and Immigration 'Premium Service Centre'. Parked in front were three Police-style vans with 'Immigration Enforcement'. The vans seemed to have barred windows, and unclear whether they were supposed to transport people or police dogs. /2
So, those arriving for meetings/interviews - no matter how legitimate or lawful their status - is faced with a visual representation of a hostile environment. The message seems to be: 'we're going to assume you have no right to be here and treat you as if a criminal'. /3
Read 7 tweets
13 Sep
A few further thoughts on the government’s HRA/ECHR story in the Telegraph this morning. And whether I should even bother to give further thoughts. /1
As @AdamWagner1 and others have said, this isn’t new. May wanted out of the ECHR, Raab is a long term opponent etc etc. An 80 seat majority does make a difference though, making it more of a potential reality. /2
And the same defenders of the Good Friday Agreement will point out the centrality of the HRA in ensuring peace. Ditto other MPs such as @joannaccherry who have consistently sought UK govt to remain publicly committed to it. /3
Read 11 tweets
7 Sep
Listening to Michel Barnier on @franceinter on the state of the negotiations. British wants ‘best of both worlds’, EU wants ‘fairness’. Notes the personal attacks on him in UK press for 4 years. Other things to spend energy on that articles in (notably) the Telegraph.
‘The rules are simple - if the UK has WTO terms .. there will be a lot of disruption. 47% of UK goods go to Europe’. Asked re UK ‘intransigence’: the regulatory freedom cannot convert into dumping. Notes rhetoric on ‘vassal state’. Regrets Brexit as a patriotic French-European.
Barnier: Johnson himself signed the non regression clause in the PD on social front etc.
Read 7 tweets
26 Aug
Difficult to know where to begin with this obscene clip, a day after a young woman died of extreme poverty after claiming asylum and being unable to work. But let’s try. /1
Current regulations are ‘open to abuse’. What ‘abuse’? For an immigration-obsessed government in power for 10 years you might have expected to have solved this if it is such a big issue. /2
Attack on ‘activist lawyers’. Lawyers act on behalf of their clients and use the means allowed *in law* to get the best result for their clients. But aim here is to cast the blame wider than migrants themselves. /3
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!