This video is going to compare real life sex, passion, and betrayal with the severing of
cold bureaucracy- and the charismatic Patrick from Name Explain is gonna help me do it.
Issue one: Compatibility is important in a relationship.
Maybe a breakup was inevitable.
Deep down, we all know that the UK and the EU did not have the most in common.
After all, the relationship was born less from lusting between Brussels and London,
and more from proximity and necessity.
Two world wars with millions of deaths made some form of European unification a means
of survival.
When Winston Churchill first spoke on the concept of a United States of Europe, he knew
the idea would sound radical to many in the United Kingdom.
And even though the 1975 referendum to stay in the European Community passed overwhelmingly
with 67%, there was loud opposition that remained through today.
Over 40 years, since 1973, the EU and UK were tepidly living together, carving out exceptions
to currency and to open travel, resisting initiatives and dodging responsibilities.
Both sides started to resent one another before the breakup initiated.
Issue Two: Breakups can be sloppy and full of regret.
Point one of Article 50 states that any member state may decide to withdraw from the union
in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
Therefore, ironically, the court of Justice of the European Union may be asked to verify
if the referendum was indeed in accordance, especially if the UK government backtracks.
The court likely would find this (72% referendum turnout was higher than the 2015 general election),
and therefore, unlike what the media has been saying (and even your favorite Youtube bookie),
the PM will likely be implored by UK law to act with or without the approval of the parliament
(see: royal prerogative).
There is debate over whether Royal Prerogative applies, but that’s out of the scope of
this video.
Suffice it to say, if the Parliament wanted the decision for themselves, why did they
dump the choice on the electorate in the 1st place?.
But there’s more than just that.
The EU court of Justice could insist through the still active European Communities Act
of 1972 that the PM minister is legally obligated through EU law to execute article 50.
The UK is still a member of the EU until brexit is complete, and therefore EU law still applies.
In effect, there is likely no going back.
The Prime Minister is obliged to trigger article 50, and the European Council is obliged to
follow through until the complete extrication of the UK from the organization.
Anything short of that would be funny business.
Another thing many have been getting wrong is point 3 of article 50, which creates a
so-called guillotine clause for the European Union treaties with the UK.
Once article 50 is triggered, the UK cannot delay indefinitely.
Point 3 states that after triggering, either the UK and EU organize Brexit in a timely
fashion, or all their treaties are automatically cancelled after 2 years.
The chances of this being altered would require a highly unlikely unanimous agreement from
all the 27 other member states.
Issue 3: Breaking up won't solve your underlying personal problems; it might make them worse.
I should have mentioned the biggest sloppiness of all!
This wasn't some monogamous love affair between England and some blob call Europe!
This was a polyamorous love fest with Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, and the other 27
European states.
Now that England has voted out against the will of Scotland and Northern Ireland, one
breakup might lead to more.
And it all started with that godforsaken name: Brexit.
To explain why such a name is really a backwards peace sign to the rest of the United Kingdom,
here's Patrick from name explain: his Etymological name explaining videos cover everything from
geography to pokemon, so be sure to go subscribe!
Thank you will.
Yes I am Patrick from name explain and I am one of the many Brits who voted to
remain.
The term Brexit exists for one primary reason, to give the mass population a simple and easy
to consume way to understand the whole ordeal of what’s just happened.
The media likes to give issues fun little names.
That’s why so many controversies since watergate get the gate suffix so people can understand
that what the news is talking about is bad.
Obviously Brexit is simply Britain and exit mushed together but
Brexit involved more than just Britain, it involved the whole United Kingdom, but then
again I suppose Ukxit just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
In a video on my channel (which you should totally check out by the way) I explained
how Britain became Great Britain and what just Britain actually is.
TLDR just Britain in it’s most primal state refers to the countries of England and Wales.
Which funnily enough despite me saying brexit wasn’t the correct name for this it’s
actually turned out to be the most fitting.
As any map of the referendum results will show you that it was England and Wales that
wanted to exit the most.
Even Great Brexit wouldn’t be a fitting name as that would involve Scotland wanting
out too.
What comes next in the break up I don’t know.
No one really knows.
Maybe some years down the line we’ll be outside the EU’s window with a boom box
begging them to take us back.
But for now all we know is it’s going to take more than a cup of tea and to simply
keep calm and carry on.
Thanks Patrick.
Now, let’s go a little bit deeper with this topic.
Issue 4: Divorces can be messy.
There’s one aspect of this that the media is getting wrong over and over again.
Point 2 of Article 50 poses 2 distinct tasks: 1.
The EU and UK arrange the logistics of their separation; ending shared budgets, reorganizing
the EU parliament, or arranging acquired residencies for British nationals living abroad & vice
versa.
2.
Second, they will create a framework of future EU UK policy.
The language of article 50 is vague here, but it important to make this distinction.
This is what the media conflates.
Even if the EU and UK begin informal talks about trade or immigration, those things will
not be negotiated under article 50, but under Article 216 or 217 of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union.
And even more important, even if an informal arrangement is outlined earlier, these deals
will not formally be made until the UK is fully extricated from the EU and operating
under ‘third-country status’, ie.
as a non-member state.
That means more and longer uncertainty for UK nationals, businesses, Universities, and
local governments.
Issue 5: Breakups usually lead slowly, overtime, to a recovery.
But here’s the problem.
Of course we all know the UK will remain a powerhouse; but likely will carry on for the
foreseeable future as a weakened one.
The UK will be negotiating an exit that must be approved by 20 of the 27 member states,
the UK Parliament, and the European Parliament.
And don’t forget the guillotine clause from earlier; they will have 2 years to achieve
those approvals or everything is decollated anyway.
But critically: after that, when formally negotiating their future relationship with
the EU, it will fall under article 218 of the TFEU, which means it will need unanimous
ratification by all 27 member states.
It is almost unfathomable to opine that the post-brexit deal will be, at least in the
medium-term, more favorable to the United Kingdom than the one they previously had.