Predictions on the extent of the economic and political effects that Brexit will cause continue to remain uncertain. The only easy prediction concerns the tenor of the farewell, which promises to be long and complex for procedural reasons and political expediency. Let's start with the latter.
First move to Great Britain
The referendum held on 23 June had consultative value, i.e. of simple political direction. This means that the decision to withdraw from the Union must be formally ratified by a vote in the UK parliament, which is likely to be followed by substantial confirmation/opposition decisions from the individual national parliaments (Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh).
In theory, Westminster could even postpone the vote indefinitely, effectively not accepting the suggestion made by the British citizens; however, in a climate saturated with anti-politics, this option appears unsustainable.
However, the new British prime minister Theresa May needs time. Time to mend the fractures within the Conservatives that emerged during the referendum campaign. Time to prepare for the parliamentary vote without the risk of fueling secessionist impulses that have never died down. Time to better prepare the strategy and the diplomatic terrain on which to kick off the negotiating meetings (clashes) that will define the future framework of relations between the EU and the United Kingdom. And it is on this point that political interests intersect with procedural issues.
The first move is up to London, from which the request to initiate the withdrawal procedure envisaged by art. 50 of the Treaty on European Union (Tue). This clause was thought up at the time of the European Constitution to reassure your Majesty's public opinion about the possible risks of a Union that was too close and would lead to a federation.
But things turned out differently, and the procedure could now backfire against the British. As revealed by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and Giuliano Amato, the art. 50 was formulated with the idea that it should never be used. Statements that highlight the more political than juridical purpose that inspired his writing, and that testify to the common practice of sacrificing a clearer and more coherent writing of European rules on the altar of political compromise.
Biblical times
The article states that, after notification by the outgoing state, the European Council will dictate the negotiating guidelines and choose the EU negotiator, who will have two years to reach a withdrawal agreement with the other party. An agreement which, in order to enter into force, must be approved by the European Parliament and by the European Council itself.
Imagining the hundreds of negotiating chapters under discussion, in the redefinition of relations between London and the Union, two years is not much. To draw a difficult parallel, it is enough to recall that Greenland's exit from the European Community in 1982 required three.
In this situation, the British government could find itself outside the EU without a new agreement that protects the enormous economic interests it has in the continent. The negotiation period can be extended, but only by unanimous decision of the European Council, which therefore has the considerable advantage of being able to dictate the timing of a match in which it has much less to lose.
In delaying the official request for withdrawal – the latest rumors say that it will arrive at the beginning of 2017 – there is also the British attempt to reduce the involvement of the Commission as much as possible, which has so far proved to be the most intransigent and potentially most difficult actor in the offer concessions.
Given the subjects at stake and the technical skills required, there are few doubts about the central role in the negotiations which will however be required of the Commission, which in the meantime has already shown that it is ready to use both the stick and the carrot.
In fact, if on the one hand its president Jean-Claude Juncker has chosen as chief negotiator for the EU the former European commissioner Michel Barnier, a French politician not too loved beyond the Channel for reasons of identity card and curriculum , on the other he appointed the Englishman Julian King as the new Security Commissioner.
A choice which, after the resignation of Jonathan Hill, brings a Briton back to the board of commissioners, and which allows us to glimpse the possible fulcrum of the political cooperation that will come between the EU and the United Kingdom.
Prime Minister May therefore agrees to expand the timing to seek the best conditions from which to start the negotiating rounds within the more comfortable closed-door intergovernmental method of the European Council.
The usual interinstitutional conflict between the European Council and the Commission, which claims, with the support of the Parliament, greater independence of action with respect to the interpretation of art. 50 described above and endorsed by the governments. However, the latter, by choosing the Belgian diplomat Didier Seeuws as their chief negotiator, do not seem to want to step aside so easily.
The future of British MEPs and officials
The coming months will thus see a United Kingdom about to pack its bags with pragmatic slowness and with a few "small" embarrassments to face. If May has assured that she wants to give up the rotating presidency of the EU Council scheduled for the second half of 2017, the modalities of participation of the British - representatives, seconded state officials and judges - within the European institutions still remain uncertain (according to Treaties, the withdrawing State cannot participate only in the resolutions and decisions that concern it).
It is likely that there will be a low profile participation which will not irritate the other countries and the Commission, which, if the withdrawal notification is too late, has indicated that it intends to take London to the Court of Justice for breach of the principle of sincere cooperation (Article 4 of the EU Treaty).
Regarding the fate of the 73 MEPs elected in the United Kingdom, the duration of the negotiations seems to suggest their "gentle exit" coinciding with the end of their mandate, even if greater unknowns remain about their involvement in the legislative processes between now and 2019.
Different speech for the many European officials of British nationality who, not working for their country but for the EU, will remain in their post if anything with fewer career opportunities and a few more jokes in the corridors.
