“To summarise the other four points raised, there is some focus on the resort to ordinary public international law and potentially arbitration should the dispute over the exit bill not be resolved during the two-year period , the possibility of unilateral action in relation to guaranteeing EU citizenship rights post Brexit , the status of UK assets deployed as part of ongoing EU missions , and the necessity of some form of customs checking arrangements .
In conclusion, this report rightly suggests that the consequences of a ‘no deal’ scenario are largely predictable, and the potential risks associated with it should be assessed and a contingency plan developed, otherwise private individuals as well as public institutions might face considerable uncertainty and hardship post Brexit. Such an evaluation is particularly pertinent in light of the fact that the possibility of the UK finding itself in a ‘no deal’ situation is not as remote as one may be inclined to think.”
Theresa May is to trigger Article 50 on 29 March 2017, kicking off the two-year negotiation period during which the relationship between the UK and the EU will be redefined. On 12 March the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee published their ninth report of the current session: ‘Article 50 negotiations: Implications of ‘no deal’’. This is the first Select Committee publication focusing specifically on the implications faced by the UK in the event of a ‘no deal’ situation, with reference to a range of different sectors, policy areas and circumstances. Last week the concerns raised in the report as to the Government’s position or rather the apparent lack thereof regarding ‘no deal’ implications seemed to be confirmed when the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union made headlines telling the Brexit Select Committee that the Government had done no economic assessment of the possible effects of a…
View original post 1,494 more words