Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
Frank:
I think Bernard is going further and saying that even if the Council were minded to accept an A50 revocation, it might impose conditions such as the loss of opt-outs or rebates.

I think that might be seen as being too punitive, and there would be a desire to avoid being seen to exacerbate the humiliation already felt by a member reversing its position.

Well, it's not me saying this, but the Dutch academic from Leiden University I quoted (read the whole thing BTW).

But I think he has a point: A50 must not become a tool for the UK - or other countries - government to extract better EU membership terms.

It's not a matter of "punitive" or "humiliation": just a matter of protecting the EU member countries against parties who are actively leaving it. Since the UK has blown the house up, the house cannot be unblown. There is a strong argument for not just cancelling A50 and pretend it never happened.

EU27 members patience with the UK is running thin and I don't see much support for an "all is forgiven" Remain, assuming the UK ever goes that way in the first place, especially if the rescindment of A50 only happens once the UK realize they're not getting the deal they were expecting. There will be some frank appraisal: what's the best way forward for each member country and for the EU?

Putting the argument the other way: should the EU27 decide we're all better off with the UK inside the tent pissing out, where do we set the membership terms?
To the concessions granted to Cameron pre-referendum in 2016? Before that point?

No easy answer, but anyway, not much use speculating on something that's not very likely to happen.

by Bernard on Thu Oct 19th, 2017 at 09:29:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series