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
This article does not tell us a great deal about the process of joining or how long it would take. Since an ex-member seeking to rejoin would be unprecedented, we can base some of what we know on the recent enlargement processes - but only so far. /4
Enlargement is a legal process (the incoming state has to adopt all EU law and show adherence to the Treaty values) but is heavily dependent on the politics. No state has the *right* to join, but only to apply. Any current member can veto entry. Usually 10 years are needed. /5
The UK would have to formally apply and be approved as a candidate, joining Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey, some of which have been in the process for longer than others. UK as a queue-jumper? (No comment). /6
If the Council of the EU approves the start of accession negotiations, then the fun begins. The Commission issues annual reports on the readiness of a country to join and assume the obligations of membership. E.g, the most recent one for Montenegro: /7 ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-…
The monitoring is technical but also speaks to 'bigger picture' issues including democracy and the rule of law. In theory, the UK should not have too much of a problem but the EU would be entitled to quiz the UK on its respect for international law (as a random example). /8
The longer the UK is outside the EU, the more likely that the legal systems will start to diverge - unless the UK deliberately remains close to EU law (but that seems incompatible with the spirit of Brexit). /9
Iceland is probably the closest example: it applied for membership (2009) and as it is already integrated with the EU in the internal market (EEA), Schengen, Dublin Regulation etc the process went quickly - until a change of govt in 2013 put the process on hold indefinitely. /10
So *in theory* the rejoining process could happen relatively quickly if we are only talking about adopting the law to bring it (back) in line with EU law. But of course much more than that is required, which is where the bigger negotiation issues come in. /11
It seems highly unlikely that the UK would be in a position to argue for any kind of previous opt-out: unless the other MS were very keen on the UK rejoining and prepared to continue the UK's history of exceptional treatment as an EU member. /12
The UK would be expected therefore to work towards membership of Schengen (if that is workable vis-a-vis Ireland) and the euro (though not all the 27 have adopted it, and this is not being enforced for those - Czech Rep, Poland etc - who have not). /13
The UK's budgetary contributions might have to take into account the cost to the other Member States for the Brexit adventure, assuming it has gone badly (and thus why the UK is seeking readmission?). Rebate? Forget it. /14
It goes without saying that the EU27 would need to be convinced that the UK was going to be a committed member. This *might* (although I am unsure about how) lead the UK to try put in place a domestic mechanism to prevent from trying to leave again in the short term. /15
On top of that, the UK would have an uphill struggle to regain the position of influence it had within the institutions whether explicit (allocation of qualified majority voting rights) or implicit (informal influence on the EU's overall direction). /16
And Scotland? The challenges are different. As Art 49 states, membership is open to any 'European state'. So, statehood is a pre-requisite, but it is conceivable that it could be a 'potential candidate' (as Kosovo is) after an Indyref 'yes' and before independence happens. /17
Although the Scottish government might have tried to keep the law in devolved areas in line with EU law from now onwards, an independent Scotland would need to develop (e.g.) monetary, defence & foreign policies and ensure compatibility with the EU. A big task. /18
We know from the example of the breakup of Czechoslovakia that the untangling of Scotland-UK relations would take time, and unless the UK is also (re)applying for EU membership (unlikely) then bilateral issues would need resolving, possibly before EU membership can happen. /19
Top of the list of tricky issues is of course the land border, since Scotland would be in the internal market but England not. And either there are customs posts etc or a creative solution would be need to enable Scotland to join and keep the single market intact. /20
Scotland would not have the UK's political baggage, and there would be much more political will to facilitate membership (though hiccups can occur). Whether Scotland would need a specific referendum on joining the EU is unclear (I think), but .. /21
If the process takes several years post-indy, an accession referendum might be expected. All recent members (except Cyprus and Bulgaria) have done so but, as for Norway (1972, 1994), the population might decide against it. /22 (Source: Mendez and Mendez) elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/97…
Either way, whilst there are many who hope that the UK could seek to rejoin in the short-term or Scotland could join as soon as possible if independence happens, there are huge (although different) issues associated with both. /23
Just to repeat: this is not an argument either way, but an attempt to set out what I think are the main points to consider and to inform. I might be completely wrong. Thank you for reading this far and I'll leave the last word to Dewsbury's most famous daughter. /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

13 Oct
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
Read 11 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!