Brexit: The Possibilities

Francisco A. Laguna & Amy Turner

 This week, we conclude our Brexit series with an examination of the possibilities of how the withdrawal process may take shape. Since the 23 June 2016 Brexit vote, several questions have arisen. Within Europe, a dispute has started about whether the decision to invoke Article 50 is the prerogative of the UK government, or if it requires Parliamentary assent. Government lawyers advised that invoking Article 50 is a government prerogative. However, the repeal of the European Communities Act by Parliament is a prerequisite, which automatically involves the UK parliament.

Another question is the extent to which the Northern Ireland Executive, Scottish Government and Welsh Government will have to be involved in the process. In this regard, Scottish Prime Minister Nicola Sturgeon has stated that legislative assent to act to implement withdrawal from the EU would be given by the Scottish Parliament.

According to Article 50, the negotiations concerning changes over budgets, voting allocations and policies due to the withdrawal of member states are the responsibility of the remaining members of the EU. However, as we discussed last week, since Article 50 has not been official invoked, official negotiations the UK, the other states and the European Commission cannot yet begin.

The decision was made to forgo any discussions until the UK formally invokes Article 50 during a meeting of Heads of States. Indeed, President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker took a strong stance and ordered that EU members not engage with UK parties regarding Brexit. This lead to Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, to state that access to the European Single Market would not be given to the UK until they accept its “four freedoms of goods, capital, services, and people”.

The changing relationship with the UK and the remaining EU members could evolve several ways. For example, the UK could remain in the European Economic Area (EEA) as a European Free Trade Association (EFTA) member (alongside Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland). The UK could attempt to join the EEA as an EFTA member. Under this plan the UK would be required to follow EU internal market legislation without being able to participate in its development or vote on its content. However, the EU is required to conduct extensive consultations with non-EU members beforehand via its many committees and cooperative bodies.

Under the EEA Agreement, certain policy areas are not apply to EFTA members such as: Common Agriculture and Fisheries Policies; Customs Union; Common Trade Policy; Common Foreign and Security Policy; direct and indirect taxation; and Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters. This allows the EFTA members to set their own policies in those areas. Common Agriculture and Fisheries Policies, Customs Union, Common Trade Policy, Common Foreign and Security Policy, direct and indirect taxation, and Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters. In order to access the internal market, EFTA countries must contribute to the EU budget.

Another option could be that the UK would use the Swiss model and seek to negotiate bilateral terms via a series of interdependent sectoral agreements. The Swiss agreements contain free movement for EU citizens. Interestingly, the Swiss immigration referendum of February 2014 voted narrowly in favor of an end to the “free movement” agreement by February 2017. If this path is chosen, Britain must keep in mind that the bilateral treaties between Switzerland and the European Union are all co-dependent. This means that if one is terminated, then all are terminated. Barring a compromise, Switzerland’s unilateral choice to end the “free movement” agreement by Switzerland could cause all EU and Swiss agreements to become invalid.

Despite the fact that many politicians had weighed in on how they think a plan should work, no real plan has been established.  However, it is very clear that membership rights require input from every individual member, and many few the Brexit vote as a snub and the UK’s failure to invoke Article 50 as a means of continuing to benefit from its membership in the EU for as long as possible.

Contact TransLegal with your questions concerning Brexit and how it may impact your business.


Brexit: Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union

Francisco A. Laguna & Amy Turner

This week, we continue our series on Brexit looking at the withdrawal provisions of the Treaty on European Union.  Article 50 controls the process for the exit of countries from the EU. Withdrawal under Article 50 is an untested procedure, and the UK’s decision has caused a debate throughout Europe as to how it should be invoked.

European Parliament in Brussels by Zinneke - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0,

European Parliament in Brussels by Zinneke – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0,

Article 50 states:

  1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
  2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
  3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

Notice of withdrawal under Article 50 is a formal, proactive act the British government should undertake. The Brexit vote on June 23, 2016 does not constitute Article 50 notice. On June 26, 2016, three days after the UK vote, the EU issued a statement regretting but respecting Britain’s decision and asking it to proceed quickly in accordance with Article 50, stating “We stand ready to launch negotiations swiftly with the United Kingdom regarding the terms and conditions of its withdrawal from the European Union.” On 28 June 2016, the EU Parliament passed a motion calling for the “immediate” triggering of Article 50.  In contrast, in the UK, the growing consensus is that Article 50 notice should be given at, or near the end of, the end of the maximum two-year. Despite the pressure, however, the reality is that there is no mechanism to compel a state to withdraw from the European Union.

uk_parliamentNewly appointed PM Theresa May has stated that negotiations with the EU required a “UK-wide approach”. “I have already said that I won’t be triggering article 50 until I think that we have a UK approach and objectives for negotiations – I think it is important that we establish that before we trigger article 50.” She has also stated “All of us will need time to prepare for these negotiations and the United Kingdom will not invoke article 50 until our objectives are clear.”

Although there are many questions that will need to be addressed, timing is the most important. Presently the European Commission is operating under the assumption that Article 50 notification may not be made before September 2017, a sign suggesting that the government of the UK may be regretting the vote. Next in the series, we will discuss the possible plans for withdraw.

Contact TransLegal with your questions concerning Brexit and how it may impact your business.