Abstract
The Treaties, on which the European Union is based, describe the process for leaving the Union rather sparingly. When negotiating the treaties, the Member States did not spend all that much time thinking about how a State could leave the Union.
Rather reasonably, they were, at the time, preoccupied with the construction, not the deconstruction of the Union.
One of the major challenges the process for leaving the EU poses is that it envisages only the negotiation of a Withdrawal Agreement and a framework for the future relationship rather than the actual future relationship itself before the withdrawing Member State actually leaves.
It also imposes a strict two-year time limit (yes, extendable, but only by unanimous decision of the UK and the EU27) for the negotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement, after which the treaties cease to apply to the leaving Member State even if no agreement is reached.
This creates a problem: on Brexit day, the treaties cease to apply to the UK, but there is no – in fact cannot be any – agreement on the future relationship that will take their place.
While the UK can provide for some continuity concerning its internal laws, all the rules that govern the UK’s interaction with its neighbours and a good many of those that determine its relationship with the world would at times be replaced by outdated treaties, at times by nothing at all.
The solution that clever EU and UK lawyers came up with is “transition”. The idea is to put provisions into the Withdrawal Agreement that say, roughly, that EU law will continue to apply to the UK, but the UK loses its institutional representation in the EU.
Rather reasonably, they were, at the time, preoccupied with the construction, not the deconstruction of the Union.
One of the major challenges the process for leaving the EU poses is that it envisages only the negotiation of a Withdrawal Agreement and a framework for the future relationship rather than the actual future relationship itself before the withdrawing Member State actually leaves.
It also imposes a strict two-year time limit (yes, extendable, but only by unanimous decision of the UK and the EU27) for the negotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement, after which the treaties cease to apply to the leaving Member State even if no agreement is reached.
This creates a problem: on Brexit day, the treaties cease to apply to the UK, but there is no – in fact cannot be any – agreement on the future relationship that will take their place.
While the UK can provide for some continuity concerning its internal laws, all the rules that govern the UK’s interaction with its neighbours and a good many of those that determine its relationship with the world would at times be replaced by outdated treaties, at times by nothing at all.
The solution that clever EU and UK lawyers came up with is “transition”. The idea is to put provisions into the Withdrawal Agreement that say, roughly, that EU law will continue to apply to the UK, but the UK loses its institutional representation in the EU.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Type | Blogpost |
| Media of output | Internet |
| Publication status | Published - 18 Sept 2018 |