BBCAskThis: Your Questions on Article 50

Hello, and welcome to an Ask This Brexit Special.

Theresa May has finally fired the starting gun on the process

We've been a member for more than 40 years,

and although the Prime Minister famously said "Brexit means Brexit",

and "no deal is better than a bad deal", we still don't really know

what life outside the EU will look like.

What will our trade relationship be with our closest neigbours?

And what's the future for EU citizens living and working here?

We'll try and answer some of your questions

about Britain's exit from the EU. With me is our Economics

Oliver Illott, Senior Researcher at the thinktank The Institute

for Government, which works to make Whitehall more effective.

And the UK immigration lawyer Natasha Chell,

partner at Laura Devine Solicitors in London.

It would be great if we could rehearse all of this, wouldn't it?!

Let's make a start. We will try to look at all of the different aspects

if we can. The first question, Oliver, we will start with you. What

will happen if there is no deal at the end of two years? If we can't

agree terms with the other 27 members? Well, if there is no deal

at the end of two years, then we are out, that is the process we have

started today. We have started the countdown timer. And if there is no

deal by Marge 2019 -- March 2019, the way it is drafted in the EU

treaties that our connection to Europe simply ceases to apply. That

is problematic because the connections support things that we

are used to doing here in the UK, and it is a scenario that both sides

are trying to avoid. All sorts of work will go on to put legislation

in place, assuming there is a deal, but working it -- a bit blind

because you don't know what that deal is going to look like. There is

a lot of work to be done to secure rights of European National is

currently in the UK at the moment. That seems to be a priority for the

government. Not just European nationals here but also for British

to dozens in Europe. Oliver, for a lot of people, leaving the EU is the

end of many, many years of campaigning, it is what some people

have wanted for a very long time. But, once on the outside of the EU

if we don't really like it very much everything, hold on, we would have

been better thinking, will we be able to rejoin and what with that

process by like? Technically, yes. The EU has a very well-established

process for joining, they call that access. There is nothing in the

rules around joining that prohibits you from so if you have already been

a member. Technically we could rejoin. I think probably politically

that would be a difficult sell. At the moment, the UK has a bespoke

relationship with Europe and we pay a lot of less in as contributions,

we aren't members of the Euro. If we were to rejoin there is a question

mark about whether we would join on exactly the same terms. Politically

it feels like we're a long way from that. Wouldn't we be in courage to

join the euro, if it still exists? I think the lesson in Europe is the

rule is laid down and there are other rules as they are interpreted.

We are probably talking many years into the future and it is probably

not fair to say at this stage exactly what an accession process

for the UK would look like. We don't know what is going to happen in two

years, never mind longer than that. Come, how is the rest of the EU

going to be affected by Brexit, Donald Tusk said it is not a reason

to rejoice. There is the political shock to this long-term project that

was built in the ruins of the Second World War to end conflict in Europe

and to support economic growth and, to a large extent, it has been

successful in that. I think there has been an economic shock, there is

a feeling of economic shock across Europe. Businesses are worried,

Britain is the second largest economy in the European Union and

was an important player in the European Union. We were quite reform

minded, I think a lot of countries like Germany and Sweden and Poland

liked the fact that Britain was in the European Union, a little bit

sceptical of the European Union, not the same sort of gung ho,

pro-federalist approach of France for example. I think that balance

was quite important to the European Union. I think the fact is that the

EU feels that it has been negatively affected by Britain saying it wants

to leave. But what it has done on the contrary side to that is it has

sort of giving the EU that notion of, we need to pull together now.

And we will deal with Britain as the EU 27, the other 27 nations. And it

has given them that sort of burning platform idea, this is a real

existential threat to Europe therefore we must pull together.

Most of the polling has suggested that since Britain now Stitt was

leaving the European Union, actually pro-European sentiment has slightly

gone up across Europe -- since Britain announced. Although there is

the political and economic shock, to some parts of the EU this could be

quite a good sort of Gelling factor against further moves towards

division. How will the rest of the EU cope, then, with a 38% drop in

its income when we stop contributing, as many of those who

wanted to leave said that we would be spending all of this money which

we could spend at home. And of course, usually come in new

countries that come into the EU are net beneficiaries, aren't they?

Britain is a net contributor to the European Union, and certainly the

countries like Germany, the biggest contributor to the European Union's

budget, that net contribution from Britain was very, very important and

I'm sure will be one of the big negotiating areas over the next two

years. What does Britain continue to pay into the European Union for

access to the Single Market, for access to the customs union? And for

access to some of the regulatory bodies that written might want to

retain and maintain operation with -- that Britain might. That will be

one of the big debates. The issue is that Britain is a net contributor,

an important part of the European Union budget. And I think Germany in

particular will be pushing to ensure that there is some kind of deal with

Britain, but as part of that deal there is some form of contribution

from Britain into the European Union, although if there isn't,

frankly, Germany will be paying more. This probably is too Oliver

and, This was said to us via text. -- and come all. We should start

making trade deals with Commonwealth countries, if the EU don't like it,

what are they going to do, expel us? We are going anyway? I think there

are probably a few things holding the UK back. The first thing is, if

you are about to launch into the process of doing lots of deals

around the world, you want people to think you are the kind of person who

sticks to the deals on contracts you have already signed. Breaching our

arrangements with the EU by running around the world doing trade deals

doesn't send the best signal to those people we are trying to do the

deals with. It is also reflecting on the fact that many of these

countries, you know, Brazil, China, India, these fast-growing economies,

there is a reason why not many people have trade deals with them

already and it is because it is very difficult to get trade deals with

these people. You can think a lot of time and resources into that and not

get very far. The UK has -- the EU has been negotiating with Brazil for

over 20 years now. Talks have been going on with India over and over

again and you don't get anywhere. Finally I think the latter

consideration for the UK on this is, at the moment, it has access to over

50 European free trade deals. It won't keep that access

automatically, so where it is focusing its time and resources is

in carrying over the deals that it does have and then it can turn its

attention to the new deals. Theresa May made it very clear today that we

aren't law-abiding country and the regulations and rules of being a

member of the EU is that you can't -- we are a law abiding country. I

agree about the complexity of doing those deals in any case. But I think

it is absolutely right that if we were to try to go beyond what I'm

sure to informal behind-the-scenes talks with many nations about the

types of trading relationships we could have with them, to do anything

formally add to launch that type of aggressive position at a time when

we are, it sounds like to me today from the letter being quite

consolatory, I think would be very negative message to the rest of

Europe and the rest of Europe would react very robust least by Garissa

another text message. A lot of things are anonymous, people seem to

not want to tell us who we are! Everybody says the EU will slap a

10% tariff on our goods going into Europe, so why don't we just slept

10% going back the other way? And as we don't import more than we export,

why does it cost them more than as? It is a bit tit-for-tat? Neither

side want a tariff war, I don't think that would be seeing as being

good for the economy of the UK or the economy of the rest of Europe.

Although, yes, we do import more than we export as a proportion,

Britain's weight in Europe is far lower than Europe's's weight in

Britain. Although on the actual number, yes, that is correct. On the

actual quantity, the proportion, Britain is less important to Europe

than Europe is to Britain in terms of the imports and exports. I don't

think either side of this debate over the next two years once this

notion of a battle of a sense of conflict -- wants this notion.

Whether it is over tariff barriers or nontariff barriers, rules and

regulations. Both sides want to start on a good footing. If we were

to approach it like this text question came in, I think that would

soon disperse and that would be a real problem for both sides. Just to

jump in, I think there is a technical point to be made about how

parrots work in the world. There are rules that have been set out that we

have all signed up to about how tariffs work precisely deliver this

kind of trade war. The World Trade Organisation says that if you have a

10% tariff on cars like the EU does come EU charged that 10% tariff on

cars from all over the world - from India it is 10%, from Russia it is

, you treat everybody the same. If there is no deal between the UK and

the EU, we're not going to find an EU slapping 100% tariff on cars

because it is not allowed to. Equally if there is no deal, it

could not put a tariff on us because it would be treating people the

same. If there is no deal, the 10% tariff on cars is where the EU is

false to go, it is not a question of starting a trade war. Liam Campbell,

who was not afraid to tell us his name on Twitter, sent us a question

- the Prime Minister said there will be no Scottish referendum until the

Scots know what the Brexit deal will be. Why was that kind of thinking

not applied to the EU referendum, in other words, we think we want to

leave, but we will make our real decision when we know what the terms

of the deal would be and then we can pull back from it if we don't like

it? We are all -- not a country with a rule book with referendums.

Different referendums are set out in different ways. If you want to know

why we went into the referendum in the way that we did, you will have

two as David Cameron and that MPs empowerment. We went into the EU

referendum and voted without knowing what the new relationship would be.

The parallel vote in Scotland is voting to leave the UK without

knowing what your relationship with the UK is going to be. That I think

is the parallel that we would draw. In this referendum, David Cameron

did have a deal of sorts. Of course you remember him rushing around

European Capitals saying, I'm going to get some kind of good deal to

offer the British public. There was some notion of limits on benefits

for EU migrants coming here. Something around red tape. It was

relatively limited. Something around red tape! It was limited and not

very convincing, frankly. There was a deal of sorts that was put to the

British public before the referendum. It was a deal on what

kind of Britain would remain in the European Union, rather than what

kind of deal would we have if we said we were going to leave. Exactly

as Oliver says, the fact is that Scotland wouldn't know the deal

precisely would beat with the UK if it voted to leave the UK. Another

question to do with Scotland. If the UK has to pay this exit bill of 60

billion euros to the EU, if Scotland were then to leave the union, with

the UK, would Westminster, the rest of what remains of the UK, be able

to claim some of that money back from Scotland? If Scotland votes to

leave the United Kingdom there would be exactly the same debate about

what might be described as the divorce bill. There are huge

liabilities, shared between the four, you know, constituent parts of

the United Kingdom, Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales,

on things like the operation of government, pension liabilities,

regulations. All of the same issues that were now all talking about in

detail about the European Union and Britain's relationship with Europe

would be exactly what would be similar to the ones that would be

involved in any debate between Scotland and the rest of the United

Kingdom if Scotland decides to leave. So there would be a debate

about the divorce bill. I doubt the rest of the UK would try and claw

back money that had already been paid to Scotland. But certainly the

fact that the UK contributes support to Scotland under the Barnett

formula would become part of the debate about Scotland's exit. That

was another thing that those who said the union should stay together,

Scotland couldn't afford to sit outside the UK. What would

Scotland's economic position by? That is hugely disputed, it depends

to an expense on the price of oil, that is a huge part of Scotland's

economy and GDP. Scotland's deficit is substantially higher than the

UK's overall deficit. Some people suggest that Scotland's economy is

weaker in productivity and performance terms than the whole of

the UK economy. But Scotland is a highly educated, small nation with

resources. It has a pretty developed financial services sector based

around Edinburgh and Aberdeen and Dundee. It has good industry, good

manufacturing. It has oil. So there is nothing to say economically that

Scotland couldn't exist as an independent country. But unwinding

itself from the rest of the UK would clearly be a very compensated

exercise. Let us move on, thank you for now, and look at some of the

immigration issue that clearly bound up in these deals with Natasha

Chell, an immigration lawyer. Quite a few questions of a similar sort

coming to us in various forms, e-mail and text. What will happen to

EU nationals living and working and studying in the UK? Will we need a

visa to travel? Will people be kicked out? First of our like to

just reassure European National that nothing has changed. They have the

right to remain in the UK, exercised their treaty rights, which include

working, studying here, and many other rights under EU law. And that

will remain the same until we leave. Those rights, however, once we

leave, they will no longer apply. Law in the UK. So those EU nationals

will have to seek permission under the UK Immigration Act, like other

currently non-EU nationals have to seek permission to remain here.

Whether or not the Government may seek to carve out something more

favourable within the immigration rules for EU nationals remains to be

seen. And I think much of that shall depend on the negotiations with the

other member states. Because, let's not forget, we have over 3 million

European nationals in the UK, but we have nearly over 1 million British

citizens who are living in Europe. So it is important for us to secure

their position. So any reciprocal favourable agreement that we can

reach, the Government would no doubt seek to get that. Will any of it

depend on your marital status or for example the length of time you have

been here? MSAs, my husband is Italian, he has lived here for 11

years, what is his status, living and working here, paying taxes and

owning property and married to a British woman? -- Emma says. They

acquire permanent residency after five years. They don't need to apply

to the Home Office, they did acquire it under EU law and Saudis of their

family members. -- they do not need to acquire it. -- so do some of

their family members. If they have acquired permanent residence one

would hope they would have something similar, maybe in the form of

indefinitely to remain under the current UK immigration rules apply

to them and they may be in secure position. But how this is all going

to work out to be seen. Having said that, by Government's very keen to

provide some clarity as soon as is a reassure those European national is

what is going to happen in the lead up to Brexit -- as soon as possible.

Sheldon is asking a question going on the other direction. He says, I

have a property in France and want to continue to stay there as and

when and eventually to live there permanently. Will I be able to do

this? Again, very similarly, for British citizens they will continue

to have the freedom to live and reside in Europe until the UK leaves

the EU. We would hope there would be some reciprocal agreements between

the UK and the EU, and one would hope it will be favourable. Yes, it

does remain to be seen. In that scenario they would need to comply

with the domestic legislation in that country when we leave. Don't we

have any other immigration regulations which are our own, which

are not necessarily pertinent just to EU nationals that might be

relevant after we leave to everybody? Yes, we do. Under the UK

Immigration Act of 1971 we have immigration rules which enable

migrants to come to the UK to work, to study, to set up businesses. And

yes, of course, EU nationals after we leave the EU, you would think

could therefore apply and be subject to those rules. Absolutely that

could certainly be the case but it would be quite onerous for them.

Because the UK economy relies so heavily on EU nationals, one would

hope that there would be some carve out within immigration rules to

provide a more favourable route for those nationals. Another anonymous

e-mail... What happens, Oliver, if there is no qualified majority on

the exit conditions in two time? Code those in the EU, -- in two

years' time? Code they stop us going? The short answer is, no. We

have triggered Article 50, and the way that Article 50 is drafted says

you have got two years to get an agreement, and if you don't, you're

just out. The treaties of the EU is in police is to apply to you. The

only way of getting around that at the moment -- cease to apply to you.

If the UK and the other 27 want to keep talks rolling, there is a

question mark about whether the UK can reverse the process but we don't

know the answer to that yet. There is no scope, I think, for the EU 27

to hold us in the EU against our will. When all of this was being

discussed before the vote happened last year, there were lots of voices

saying, well, Article 50 is a very sort of vague thing, it's so short

and nobody has tested it before. I mean, how clear is Article 50 about

what it means and what you can and can't do with it? It is not as clear

as some of us would like it to be at the moment. It is very short. The

most contentious bit and the bit that the UK is probably focusing on

most is that Article 50 really sets the terms for your divorce. It sets

the terms under which the UK leaves. And then it says, paying regard to

whatever your future relationship is going to be. So the focus of Article

50 is really on the divorce. What the UK is more interested in talking

about is what the new relationship is going to be, that is included in

Article 50 but it is not the focus. The challenge for Theresa May, which

she clearly has set her ambition on, is trying to get the future

relationship into the divorce talks and have them at the same time. We

talked about it being in line with the constitutional relationships of

the country that wanted to leave. That is why we went through the

Supreme Court about the role of Parliament. Is it clear, the role of

parliament now? Most of the questions about Parliament's

involvement have been settled. Parliament voted to give the

Government the right to regard to go 50 and they will have a vote at the

end of this process, although we have only got two years to negotiate

the deal. If the deal is rushed to Parliament very late in this

process, parliament might have a take it or leave it type option. The

wild card in terms of how much involvement parliament is going to

have is how at access they are going to have to do is talk as they go on.

David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, has said he wants MPs to have the

same love love access to the talks as members of the European

Parliament. -- he wants MPs to have the same access to talks. If that is

what is replicated in this situation, that has the wild card in

terms of what role in bees might end up playing. The Tasha, what is going

to happen, says an anonymous person via e-mail, to any cases that are

going through the European Court of Justice, which looks after anything

to do with EU law and regulation? For example, cases against the UK

from to Dearing to EU rules? There are some cases which may arise after

negotiations have been saddled. Those cases will need to be

considered on the legislation which was applied at the time. With

regards to the decision that has been challenged. If at that point

that case is challenging an EU part of legislation then they will have

two apply that in considering whether or not it is right or not.

What will happen after we leave, then? If we have taken a lot of EU

regulations in under the Great Repeal Bill, but we are not part of

the EU any longer, should we have to be under the jurisdiction of the

European Court of Justice or should we need another supranational body

which will, which we will refer cases to that become difficult? The

key question is, what the future relationship about in terms of

regulation. We have copied across the EU regulations as they are at

the moment, but that doesn't mean that if Brussels passes new

regulations in the future they will end up in our statute book. That is

the key question for the easy day. If it is going to be the case that

new regulations made in Brussels are going to apply in the UK, then you

can see a role for the ECJ, or another of these courts to have a

role in interpreting these things. But if we are going to strike a

trade deal whether UK is going to have more independence in terms of

setting its own regulation then you might find something else, something

slightly lighter touch, is established. Kamal, from a

journalist does not point of view, how hopeful are you that we will

find out what is going on in this negotiations? There has been a

signal that there will be a bit more transparency than initially thought.

Michel Barnier, who is going to lead the negotiations for the European

Commission, has said that he wants to see a relatively transparent

process. There could be some announcements from the EU about how

they want to actually approach the trade deal. And I think in the

letter today there was some signal about certainty, dealing with issues

like immigration, dealing with issues about regulation of business

relationships with the European Union, which means that there could

be some issues of substance sorted and announced before the end of the

process. I think the consolatory tone of the letter today does

include some notion of greater transparency then maybe we thought.

Thank you for all of you. Oliver Illott from the Institute for

Government. Immigration lawyer Natasha Chell. And Kamal Ahmed,

thank you very much. And thank you to you if you sent us some

questions, anonymous or otherwise, to BBCAskThis.