Why did the EU agree to delay the Brexit deadline?












14















Pretty much the title.



My attempts to search Google only brings in swathes or news items about extension, but no explanation of why it might be so, at least none that I can find.



Attempt to make UK take part in upcoming elections and stay in EU out of inertia? It should be clear by now that no matter what the UK will not get their proverbial stuff together, so what's the point? Does the EU need more time for something? Way to give UK more of proverbial rope? Reasons to agree to extension elude me.










share|improve this question




















  • 3





    To be the better person in the break up. Because we all know how this is going to end. Either no deal or no exit.

    – dan-klasson
    7 hours ago
















14















Pretty much the title.



My attempts to search Google only brings in swathes or news items about extension, but no explanation of why it might be so, at least none that I can find.



Attempt to make UK take part in upcoming elections and stay in EU out of inertia? It should be clear by now that no matter what the UK will not get their proverbial stuff together, so what's the point? Does the EU need more time for something? Way to give UK more of proverbial rope? Reasons to agree to extension elude me.










share|improve this question




















  • 3





    To be the better person in the break up. Because we all know how this is going to end. Either no deal or no exit.

    – dan-klasson
    7 hours ago














14












14








14


1






Pretty much the title.



My attempts to search Google only brings in swathes or news items about extension, but no explanation of why it might be so, at least none that I can find.



Attempt to make UK take part in upcoming elections and stay in EU out of inertia? It should be clear by now that no matter what the UK will not get their proverbial stuff together, so what's the point? Does the EU need more time for something? Way to give UK more of proverbial rope? Reasons to agree to extension elude me.










share|improve this question
















Pretty much the title.



My attempts to search Google only brings in swathes or news items about extension, but no explanation of why it might be so, at least none that I can find.



Attempt to make UK take part in upcoming elections and stay in EU out of inertia? It should be clear by now that no matter what the UK will not get their proverbial stuff together, so what's the point? Does the EU need more time for something? Way to give UK more of proverbial rope? Reasons to agree to extension elude me.







brexit extension






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 10 hours ago









JJJ

4,87622144




4,87622144










asked 14 hours ago









M i echM i ech

331110




331110








  • 3





    To be the better person in the break up. Because we all know how this is going to end. Either no deal or no exit.

    – dan-klasson
    7 hours ago














  • 3





    To be the better person in the break up. Because we all know how this is going to end. Either no deal or no exit.

    – dan-klasson
    7 hours ago








3




3





To be the better person in the break up. Because we all know how this is going to end. Either no deal or no exit.

– dan-klasson
7 hours ago





To be the better person in the break up. Because we all know how this is going to end. Either no deal or no exit.

– dan-klasson
7 hours ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















20















  1. A no deal Brexit would also hurt the EU. Not so much as to offer the pact that the Parliament wants (in the case that the Parliament knew what it wants), but enough to provide an extension to see if the deal gets approved.


  2. In the worst case scenario, the EU has a few more day to roll out its own contingency measures for a no deal Brexit.


  3. It shows the EU as a reasonable actor that does not refuse to give some slack to the other side.



In any case, the extension is not a big deal: a few days if the temporary agreement is not accepted, less than two months if it is accepted, and in neither case it will cause issues with the upcoming EU elections.



And for "it is an attempt to force the UK to take part in the elections" comment, I do not understand what would the EU stand to win from the UK holding EU elections, and the EU is not interested in that: even the longer extension ensures that the UK will not have to elect MEPs.






share|improve this answer

































    12














    Simply put, a number of countries, mostly importantly Germany and the Netherlands, do not want the UK to leave the EU without a deal.



    This is more for economic reasons than political ones. The chaotic effect on trade, in a no deal scenario, would have a significant knock on effect on the economies of those countries (amongst others).



    So the EU leaders effectively agreed two courses of action. In the unlikely event of the Withdrawal Agreement being passed by the UK Parliament next week, there is an extension to 22nd May to allow the UK to close out all the legislation needed to enact it. This is sensible in that the EU is getting what it wants for the sake of a couple of months and without the legal complications related to interference with the EU Parliament elections.



    If the Act fails, then the UK has until mid-April to come up with a plan or bomb out. The April date is the latest date after which EU Parliament elections are affected. If the UK still wants to look for a solution at this stage, they will be required to participate in the EU Parliamentary elections and the date will probably be extended until at least December.



    So, in essence, the EU leaders have just moved the arbitrary end March date to the latest possible dates. Politically, the value of this is that they haven't shut any doors i.e. the ball is back in the UK's court.



    It's also worth pointing out that some leaders (e.g. Tusk and Bettel) in the EU are still holding out hope that the UK will come to its senses (as it were) and revoke Article 50. The thinking is that the more chaotic pre-Brexit is, the more likely that that will happen. This is probably wishful thinking but is a consideration.






    share|improve this answer

































      6














      The EU doesn't need more time, and it certainly doesn't want to give the UK more rope to hang itself.



      The EU does not want a no-deal Brexit. There are lots of things which immediately affect the EU and/or its citizens directly, and I'll point out a few:




      • There's a 39 billion Euro settlement which is likely not going to be paid with a no deal Brexit.

      • There will be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland on a no deal Brexit.

      • There will not be an agreement on rights of EU citizens in the UK (or UK citizens in the EU). They may have to leave sooner or later.

      • Additional customs checks are costly to implement, costly to maintain, and will hurt trade.


      But the most important reason is that while the UK will leave the EU, it will still be located really close to the EU. The entire reason the EU is exists is the realization that "we're going to need each other tomorrow". The UK may leave, but there will still be a future between the EU and the UK. Starting that future with slammed doors will only cause pain and suffering. The EU builds bridges, it doesn't burn them.



      Granting a two week (or two months) extension is an easy price to pay. It only took the EU council a few hours to agree on the length of the extension, there was hardly a debate on whether an extension should be granted.






      share|improve this answer


























      • I'm fairly certain that the €39bn will be paid, if only to draw a firm line under the whole business and avoid any dispute. The UK has laid out plans for the Irish border. Point 3 isn't right. The UK Government has unilaterally announced the availability of "settled status" for EU citizens who are resident in the UK and contribute to the UK economy.

        – Andrew Leach
        5 hours ago



















      4














      I have to agree for the most part with Alex. The EU is trying to force the UK so that they do not leave without a deal. Most European leaders would prefer no Brexit over May's deal, but they settle for it if it's the best option they have. Their calculation isn't that difficult: If May's deal does not get enacted, they assume that parliament will act to avoid the no deal that they clearly do not want. The two options would be ask for a longer extension(at least till the end of the year) or revoke article 50. In either case a no deal is avoided. The biggest flaw in this plan is that parliament will not have much time to act and it's even an uncertainty if they will when they are headed for a no deal.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      Lovapa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





















      • Do you have any reference for your claim "Most European leaders would prefer no brexit over may's deal"?

        – Abigail
        10 hours ago






      • 3





        Yes, the most recent proof comes out of the german newspaper "deutshe welle" by richard connor in which he explains the european side of brexit and the perspectives of the individual countries. dw.com/en/brexit-what-europe-wants/a-47165443 Also we have the joint statement on the official site of council ofthe european union in which they state that they regret the brexit descision but respect it.consilium.europa.eu/en/brexit

        – Lovapa
        9 hours ago













      • Ah, you are right. For some reason, I mixed up "no Brexit" over "no deal Brexit". My bad.

        – Abigail
        8 hours ago



















      1














      Extending a few weeks doesn't really hurt the EU*. Kicking them out now might put part of the blame on the EU, at least in some people's perception. At least with the EU elections, the EU has a good excuse to force the UK out, or force them to take part in EU elections (which is counter to the promised leaving of the EU).



      If May manages to pass the deal now (very unlikely, I know), no-deal is successfully averted which would be very good for the parties involved.



      If May does not manage to come up with a good alternative then the UK will be out only a few weeks later. Yes, this causes the uncertainty to exist for a few more weeks, but it also gives some time to prepare as it's clearer now than ever before that no-deal is likely.



      If May does manage to propose a new deal that is agreeable to the EU and UK parliament (maybe the UK decides to come up with a cross-party approach) that would be even better. It's in everyone's interest that there is a deal and the more people support a deal the more likely it is to be a lasting solution.



      *In fact, the extra time may be helpful for some business's and countries' no-deal preparations. Dutch state media wrote the following:




      Het uitstel van brexit lijkt Nederlandse ondernemers goed uit te komen. Twee derde heeft zich namelijk niet of maar een beetje voorbereid op een vertrek van de Britten, blijkt uit nieuwe cijfers van het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken.



      Ook in de Nederlandse havens moet nog veel gebeuren om de export naar het Verenigd Koninkrijk ook na een Brits vertrek uit de Europese Unie soepel te laten verlopen. Deal óf geen deal.




      Roughly translated by me:




      The postponement of Brexit seems to be good for Dutch entrepreneurs. Two-thirds has made no or only little preparations for the British departure from the EU, statistics from the Dutch Foreign Ministry show.



      Dutch ports, too, still need to do a lot to ensure exports continue to run smoothly. Deal or no deal.







      share|improve this answer

























        Your Answer








        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "475"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });














        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39688%2fwhy-did-the-eu-agree-to-delay-the-brexit-deadline%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes








        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        20















        1. A no deal Brexit would also hurt the EU. Not so much as to offer the pact that the Parliament wants (in the case that the Parliament knew what it wants), but enough to provide an extension to see if the deal gets approved.


        2. In the worst case scenario, the EU has a few more day to roll out its own contingency measures for a no deal Brexit.


        3. It shows the EU as a reasonable actor that does not refuse to give some slack to the other side.



        In any case, the extension is not a big deal: a few days if the temporary agreement is not accepted, less than two months if it is accepted, and in neither case it will cause issues with the upcoming EU elections.



        And for "it is an attempt to force the UK to take part in the elections" comment, I do not understand what would the EU stand to win from the UK holding EU elections, and the EU is not interested in that: even the longer extension ensures that the UK will not have to elect MEPs.






        share|improve this answer






























          20















          1. A no deal Brexit would also hurt the EU. Not so much as to offer the pact that the Parliament wants (in the case that the Parliament knew what it wants), but enough to provide an extension to see if the deal gets approved.


          2. In the worst case scenario, the EU has a few more day to roll out its own contingency measures for a no deal Brexit.


          3. It shows the EU as a reasonable actor that does not refuse to give some slack to the other side.



          In any case, the extension is not a big deal: a few days if the temporary agreement is not accepted, less than two months if it is accepted, and in neither case it will cause issues with the upcoming EU elections.



          And for "it is an attempt to force the UK to take part in the elections" comment, I do not understand what would the EU stand to win from the UK holding EU elections, and the EU is not interested in that: even the longer extension ensures that the UK will not have to elect MEPs.






          share|improve this answer




























            20












            20








            20








            1. A no deal Brexit would also hurt the EU. Not so much as to offer the pact that the Parliament wants (in the case that the Parliament knew what it wants), but enough to provide an extension to see if the deal gets approved.


            2. In the worst case scenario, the EU has a few more day to roll out its own contingency measures for a no deal Brexit.


            3. It shows the EU as a reasonable actor that does not refuse to give some slack to the other side.



            In any case, the extension is not a big deal: a few days if the temporary agreement is not accepted, less than two months if it is accepted, and in neither case it will cause issues with the upcoming EU elections.



            And for "it is an attempt to force the UK to take part in the elections" comment, I do not understand what would the EU stand to win from the UK holding EU elections, and the EU is not interested in that: even the longer extension ensures that the UK will not have to elect MEPs.






            share|improve this answer
















            1. A no deal Brexit would also hurt the EU. Not so much as to offer the pact that the Parliament wants (in the case that the Parliament knew what it wants), but enough to provide an extension to see if the deal gets approved.


            2. In the worst case scenario, the EU has a few more day to roll out its own contingency measures for a no deal Brexit.


            3. It shows the EU as a reasonable actor that does not refuse to give some slack to the other side.



            In any case, the extension is not a big deal: a few days if the temporary agreement is not accepted, less than two months if it is accepted, and in neither case it will cause issues with the upcoming EU elections.



            And for "it is an attempt to force the UK to take part in the elections" comment, I do not understand what would the EU stand to win from the UK holding EU elections, and the EU is not interested in that: even the longer extension ensures that the UK will not have to elect MEPs.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 10 hours ago









            chirlu

            3,99841428




            3,99841428










            answered 14 hours ago









            SJuan76SJuan76

            20k54972




            20k54972























                12














                Simply put, a number of countries, mostly importantly Germany and the Netherlands, do not want the UK to leave the EU without a deal.



                This is more for economic reasons than political ones. The chaotic effect on trade, in a no deal scenario, would have a significant knock on effect on the economies of those countries (amongst others).



                So the EU leaders effectively agreed two courses of action. In the unlikely event of the Withdrawal Agreement being passed by the UK Parliament next week, there is an extension to 22nd May to allow the UK to close out all the legislation needed to enact it. This is sensible in that the EU is getting what it wants for the sake of a couple of months and without the legal complications related to interference with the EU Parliament elections.



                If the Act fails, then the UK has until mid-April to come up with a plan or bomb out. The April date is the latest date after which EU Parliament elections are affected. If the UK still wants to look for a solution at this stage, they will be required to participate in the EU Parliamentary elections and the date will probably be extended until at least December.



                So, in essence, the EU leaders have just moved the arbitrary end March date to the latest possible dates. Politically, the value of this is that they haven't shut any doors i.e. the ball is back in the UK's court.



                It's also worth pointing out that some leaders (e.g. Tusk and Bettel) in the EU are still holding out hope that the UK will come to its senses (as it were) and revoke Article 50. The thinking is that the more chaotic pre-Brexit is, the more likely that that will happen. This is probably wishful thinking but is a consideration.






                share|improve this answer






























                  12














                  Simply put, a number of countries, mostly importantly Germany and the Netherlands, do not want the UK to leave the EU without a deal.



                  This is more for economic reasons than political ones. The chaotic effect on trade, in a no deal scenario, would have a significant knock on effect on the economies of those countries (amongst others).



                  So the EU leaders effectively agreed two courses of action. In the unlikely event of the Withdrawal Agreement being passed by the UK Parliament next week, there is an extension to 22nd May to allow the UK to close out all the legislation needed to enact it. This is sensible in that the EU is getting what it wants for the sake of a couple of months and without the legal complications related to interference with the EU Parliament elections.



                  If the Act fails, then the UK has until mid-April to come up with a plan or bomb out. The April date is the latest date after which EU Parliament elections are affected. If the UK still wants to look for a solution at this stage, they will be required to participate in the EU Parliamentary elections and the date will probably be extended until at least December.



                  So, in essence, the EU leaders have just moved the arbitrary end March date to the latest possible dates. Politically, the value of this is that they haven't shut any doors i.e. the ball is back in the UK's court.



                  It's also worth pointing out that some leaders (e.g. Tusk and Bettel) in the EU are still holding out hope that the UK will come to its senses (as it were) and revoke Article 50. The thinking is that the more chaotic pre-Brexit is, the more likely that that will happen. This is probably wishful thinking but is a consideration.






                  share|improve this answer




























                    12












                    12








                    12







                    Simply put, a number of countries, mostly importantly Germany and the Netherlands, do not want the UK to leave the EU without a deal.



                    This is more for economic reasons than political ones. The chaotic effect on trade, in a no deal scenario, would have a significant knock on effect on the economies of those countries (amongst others).



                    So the EU leaders effectively agreed two courses of action. In the unlikely event of the Withdrawal Agreement being passed by the UK Parliament next week, there is an extension to 22nd May to allow the UK to close out all the legislation needed to enact it. This is sensible in that the EU is getting what it wants for the sake of a couple of months and without the legal complications related to interference with the EU Parliament elections.



                    If the Act fails, then the UK has until mid-April to come up with a plan or bomb out. The April date is the latest date after which EU Parliament elections are affected. If the UK still wants to look for a solution at this stage, they will be required to participate in the EU Parliamentary elections and the date will probably be extended until at least December.



                    So, in essence, the EU leaders have just moved the arbitrary end March date to the latest possible dates. Politically, the value of this is that they haven't shut any doors i.e. the ball is back in the UK's court.



                    It's also worth pointing out that some leaders (e.g. Tusk and Bettel) in the EU are still holding out hope that the UK will come to its senses (as it were) and revoke Article 50. The thinking is that the more chaotic pre-Brexit is, the more likely that that will happen. This is probably wishful thinking but is a consideration.






                    share|improve this answer















                    Simply put, a number of countries, mostly importantly Germany and the Netherlands, do not want the UK to leave the EU without a deal.



                    This is more for economic reasons than political ones. The chaotic effect on trade, in a no deal scenario, would have a significant knock on effect on the economies of those countries (amongst others).



                    So the EU leaders effectively agreed two courses of action. In the unlikely event of the Withdrawal Agreement being passed by the UK Parliament next week, there is an extension to 22nd May to allow the UK to close out all the legislation needed to enact it. This is sensible in that the EU is getting what it wants for the sake of a couple of months and without the legal complications related to interference with the EU Parliament elections.



                    If the Act fails, then the UK has until mid-April to come up with a plan or bomb out. The April date is the latest date after which EU Parliament elections are affected. If the UK still wants to look for a solution at this stage, they will be required to participate in the EU Parliamentary elections and the date will probably be extended until at least December.



                    So, in essence, the EU leaders have just moved the arbitrary end March date to the latest possible dates. Politically, the value of this is that they haven't shut any doors i.e. the ball is back in the UK's court.



                    It's also worth pointing out that some leaders (e.g. Tusk and Bettel) in the EU are still holding out hope that the UK will come to its senses (as it were) and revoke Article 50. The thinking is that the more chaotic pre-Brexit is, the more likely that that will happen. This is probably wishful thinking but is a consideration.







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited 3 hours ago









                    Community

                    1




                    1










                    answered 14 hours ago









                    AlexAlex

                    3,7951020




                    3,7951020























                        6














                        The EU doesn't need more time, and it certainly doesn't want to give the UK more rope to hang itself.



                        The EU does not want a no-deal Brexit. There are lots of things which immediately affect the EU and/or its citizens directly, and I'll point out a few:




                        • There's a 39 billion Euro settlement which is likely not going to be paid with a no deal Brexit.

                        • There will be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland on a no deal Brexit.

                        • There will not be an agreement on rights of EU citizens in the UK (or UK citizens in the EU). They may have to leave sooner or later.

                        • Additional customs checks are costly to implement, costly to maintain, and will hurt trade.


                        But the most important reason is that while the UK will leave the EU, it will still be located really close to the EU. The entire reason the EU is exists is the realization that "we're going to need each other tomorrow". The UK may leave, but there will still be a future between the EU and the UK. Starting that future with slammed doors will only cause pain and suffering. The EU builds bridges, it doesn't burn them.



                        Granting a two week (or two months) extension is an easy price to pay. It only took the EU council a few hours to agree on the length of the extension, there was hardly a debate on whether an extension should be granted.






                        share|improve this answer


























                        • I'm fairly certain that the €39bn will be paid, if only to draw a firm line under the whole business and avoid any dispute. The UK has laid out plans for the Irish border. Point 3 isn't right. The UK Government has unilaterally announced the availability of "settled status" for EU citizens who are resident in the UK and contribute to the UK economy.

                          – Andrew Leach
                          5 hours ago
















                        6














                        The EU doesn't need more time, and it certainly doesn't want to give the UK more rope to hang itself.



                        The EU does not want a no-deal Brexit. There are lots of things which immediately affect the EU and/or its citizens directly, and I'll point out a few:




                        • There's a 39 billion Euro settlement which is likely not going to be paid with a no deal Brexit.

                        • There will be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland on a no deal Brexit.

                        • There will not be an agreement on rights of EU citizens in the UK (or UK citizens in the EU). They may have to leave sooner or later.

                        • Additional customs checks are costly to implement, costly to maintain, and will hurt trade.


                        But the most important reason is that while the UK will leave the EU, it will still be located really close to the EU. The entire reason the EU is exists is the realization that "we're going to need each other tomorrow". The UK may leave, but there will still be a future between the EU and the UK. Starting that future with slammed doors will only cause pain and suffering. The EU builds bridges, it doesn't burn them.



                        Granting a two week (or two months) extension is an easy price to pay. It only took the EU council a few hours to agree on the length of the extension, there was hardly a debate on whether an extension should be granted.






                        share|improve this answer


























                        • I'm fairly certain that the €39bn will be paid, if only to draw a firm line under the whole business and avoid any dispute. The UK has laid out plans for the Irish border. Point 3 isn't right. The UK Government has unilaterally announced the availability of "settled status" for EU citizens who are resident in the UK and contribute to the UK economy.

                          – Andrew Leach
                          5 hours ago














                        6












                        6








                        6







                        The EU doesn't need more time, and it certainly doesn't want to give the UK more rope to hang itself.



                        The EU does not want a no-deal Brexit. There are lots of things which immediately affect the EU and/or its citizens directly, and I'll point out a few:




                        • There's a 39 billion Euro settlement which is likely not going to be paid with a no deal Brexit.

                        • There will be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland on a no deal Brexit.

                        • There will not be an agreement on rights of EU citizens in the UK (or UK citizens in the EU). They may have to leave sooner or later.

                        • Additional customs checks are costly to implement, costly to maintain, and will hurt trade.


                        But the most important reason is that while the UK will leave the EU, it will still be located really close to the EU. The entire reason the EU is exists is the realization that "we're going to need each other tomorrow". The UK may leave, but there will still be a future between the EU and the UK. Starting that future with slammed doors will only cause pain and suffering. The EU builds bridges, it doesn't burn them.



                        Granting a two week (or two months) extension is an easy price to pay. It only took the EU council a few hours to agree on the length of the extension, there was hardly a debate on whether an extension should be granted.






                        share|improve this answer















                        The EU doesn't need more time, and it certainly doesn't want to give the UK more rope to hang itself.



                        The EU does not want a no-deal Brexit. There are lots of things which immediately affect the EU and/or its citizens directly, and I'll point out a few:




                        • There's a 39 billion Euro settlement which is likely not going to be paid with a no deal Brexit.

                        • There will be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland on a no deal Brexit.

                        • There will not be an agreement on rights of EU citizens in the UK (or UK citizens in the EU). They may have to leave sooner or later.

                        • Additional customs checks are costly to implement, costly to maintain, and will hurt trade.


                        But the most important reason is that while the UK will leave the EU, it will still be located really close to the EU. The entire reason the EU is exists is the realization that "we're going to need each other tomorrow". The UK may leave, but there will still be a future between the EU and the UK. Starting that future with slammed doors will only cause pain and suffering. The EU builds bridges, it doesn't burn them.



                        Granting a two week (or two months) extension is an easy price to pay. It only took the EU council a few hours to agree on the length of the extension, there was hardly a debate on whether an extension should be granted.







                        share|improve this answer














                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer








                        edited 5 hours ago









                        Brythan

                        69.8k8144236




                        69.8k8144236










                        answered 10 hours ago









                        AbigailAbigail

                        1,722412




                        1,722412













                        • I'm fairly certain that the €39bn will be paid, if only to draw a firm line under the whole business and avoid any dispute. The UK has laid out plans for the Irish border. Point 3 isn't right. The UK Government has unilaterally announced the availability of "settled status" for EU citizens who are resident in the UK and contribute to the UK economy.

                          – Andrew Leach
                          5 hours ago



















                        • I'm fairly certain that the €39bn will be paid, if only to draw a firm line under the whole business and avoid any dispute. The UK has laid out plans for the Irish border. Point 3 isn't right. The UK Government has unilaterally announced the availability of "settled status" for EU citizens who are resident in the UK and contribute to the UK economy.

                          – Andrew Leach
                          5 hours ago

















                        I'm fairly certain that the €39bn will be paid, if only to draw a firm line under the whole business and avoid any dispute. The UK has laid out plans for the Irish border. Point 3 isn't right. The UK Government has unilaterally announced the availability of "settled status" for EU citizens who are resident in the UK and contribute to the UK economy.

                        – Andrew Leach
                        5 hours ago





                        I'm fairly certain that the €39bn will be paid, if only to draw a firm line under the whole business and avoid any dispute. The UK has laid out plans for the Irish border. Point 3 isn't right. The UK Government has unilaterally announced the availability of "settled status" for EU citizens who are resident in the UK and contribute to the UK economy.

                        – Andrew Leach
                        5 hours ago











                        4














                        I have to agree for the most part with Alex. The EU is trying to force the UK so that they do not leave without a deal. Most European leaders would prefer no Brexit over May's deal, but they settle for it if it's the best option they have. Their calculation isn't that difficult: If May's deal does not get enacted, they assume that parliament will act to avoid the no deal that they clearly do not want. The two options would be ask for a longer extension(at least till the end of the year) or revoke article 50. In either case a no deal is avoided. The biggest flaw in this plan is that parliament will not have much time to act and it's even an uncertainty if they will when they are headed for a no deal.






                        share|improve this answer










                        New contributor




                        Lovapa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                        • Do you have any reference for your claim "Most European leaders would prefer no brexit over may's deal"?

                          – Abigail
                          10 hours ago






                        • 3





                          Yes, the most recent proof comes out of the german newspaper "deutshe welle" by richard connor in which he explains the european side of brexit and the perspectives of the individual countries. dw.com/en/brexit-what-europe-wants/a-47165443 Also we have the joint statement on the official site of council ofthe european union in which they state that they regret the brexit descision but respect it.consilium.europa.eu/en/brexit

                          – Lovapa
                          9 hours ago













                        • Ah, you are right. For some reason, I mixed up "no Brexit" over "no deal Brexit". My bad.

                          – Abigail
                          8 hours ago
















                        4














                        I have to agree for the most part with Alex. The EU is trying to force the UK so that they do not leave without a deal. Most European leaders would prefer no Brexit over May's deal, but they settle for it if it's the best option they have. Their calculation isn't that difficult: If May's deal does not get enacted, they assume that parliament will act to avoid the no deal that they clearly do not want. The two options would be ask for a longer extension(at least till the end of the year) or revoke article 50. In either case a no deal is avoided. The biggest flaw in this plan is that parliament will not have much time to act and it's even an uncertainty if they will when they are headed for a no deal.






                        share|improve this answer










                        New contributor




                        Lovapa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                        • Do you have any reference for your claim "Most European leaders would prefer no brexit over may's deal"?

                          – Abigail
                          10 hours ago






                        • 3





                          Yes, the most recent proof comes out of the german newspaper "deutshe welle" by richard connor in which he explains the european side of brexit and the perspectives of the individual countries. dw.com/en/brexit-what-europe-wants/a-47165443 Also we have the joint statement on the official site of council ofthe european union in which they state that they regret the brexit descision but respect it.consilium.europa.eu/en/brexit

                          – Lovapa
                          9 hours ago













                        • Ah, you are right. For some reason, I mixed up "no Brexit" over "no deal Brexit". My bad.

                          – Abigail
                          8 hours ago














                        4












                        4








                        4







                        I have to agree for the most part with Alex. The EU is trying to force the UK so that they do not leave without a deal. Most European leaders would prefer no Brexit over May's deal, but they settle for it if it's the best option they have. Their calculation isn't that difficult: If May's deal does not get enacted, they assume that parliament will act to avoid the no deal that they clearly do not want. The two options would be ask for a longer extension(at least till the end of the year) or revoke article 50. In either case a no deal is avoided. The biggest flaw in this plan is that parliament will not have much time to act and it's even an uncertainty if they will when they are headed for a no deal.






                        share|improve this answer










                        New contributor




                        Lovapa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.










                        I have to agree for the most part with Alex. The EU is trying to force the UK so that they do not leave without a deal. Most European leaders would prefer no Brexit over May's deal, but they settle for it if it's the best option they have. Their calculation isn't that difficult: If May's deal does not get enacted, they assume that parliament will act to avoid the no deal that they clearly do not want. The two options would be ask for a longer extension(at least till the end of the year) or revoke article 50. In either case a no deal is avoided. The biggest flaw in this plan is that parliament will not have much time to act and it's even an uncertainty if they will when they are headed for a no deal.







                        share|improve this answer










                        New contributor




                        Lovapa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.









                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer








                        edited 5 hours ago









                        Brythan

                        69.8k8144236




                        69.8k8144236






                        New contributor




                        Lovapa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.









                        answered 10 hours ago









                        LovapaLovapa

                        513




                        513




                        New contributor




                        Lovapa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.





                        New contributor





                        Lovapa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.






                        Lovapa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.













                        • Do you have any reference for your claim "Most European leaders would prefer no brexit over may's deal"?

                          – Abigail
                          10 hours ago






                        • 3





                          Yes, the most recent proof comes out of the german newspaper "deutshe welle" by richard connor in which he explains the european side of brexit and the perspectives of the individual countries. dw.com/en/brexit-what-europe-wants/a-47165443 Also we have the joint statement on the official site of council ofthe european union in which they state that they regret the brexit descision but respect it.consilium.europa.eu/en/brexit

                          – Lovapa
                          9 hours ago













                        • Ah, you are right. For some reason, I mixed up "no Brexit" over "no deal Brexit". My bad.

                          – Abigail
                          8 hours ago



















                        • Do you have any reference for your claim "Most European leaders would prefer no brexit over may's deal"?

                          – Abigail
                          10 hours ago






                        • 3





                          Yes, the most recent proof comes out of the german newspaper "deutshe welle" by richard connor in which he explains the european side of brexit and the perspectives of the individual countries. dw.com/en/brexit-what-europe-wants/a-47165443 Also we have the joint statement on the official site of council ofthe european union in which they state that they regret the brexit descision but respect it.consilium.europa.eu/en/brexit

                          – Lovapa
                          9 hours ago













                        • Ah, you are right. For some reason, I mixed up "no Brexit" over "no deal Brexit". My bad.

                          – Abigail
                          8 hours ago

















                        Do you have any reference for your claim "Most European leaders would prefer no brexit over may's deal"?

                        – Abigail
                        10 hours ago





                        Do you have any reference for your claim "Most European leaders would prefer no brexit over may's deal"?

                        – Abigail
                        10 hours ago




                        3




                        3





                        Yes, the most recent proof comes out of the german newspaper "deutshe welle" by richard connor in which he explains the european side of brexit and the perspectives of the individual countries. dw.com/en/brexit-what-europe-wants/a-47165443 Also we have the joint statement on the official site of council ofthe european union in which they state that they regret the brexit descision but respect it.consilium.europa.eu/en/brexit

                        – Lovapa
                        9 hours ago







                        Yes, the most recent proof comes out of the german newspaper "deutshe welle" by richard connor in which he explains the european side of brexit and the perspectives of the individual countries. dw.com/en/brexit-what-europe-wants/a-47165443 Also we have the joint statement on the official site of council ofthe european union in which they state that they regret the brexit descision but respect it.consilium.europa.eu/en/brexit

                        – Lovapa
                        9 hours ago















                        Ah, you are right. For some reason, I mixed up "no Brexit" over "no deal Brexit". My bad.

                        – Abigail
                        8 hours ago





                        Ah, you are right. For some reason, I mixed up "no Brexit" over "no deal Brexit". My bad.

                        – Abigail
                        8 hours ago











                        1














                        Extending a few weeks doesn't really hurt the EU*. Kicking them out now might put part of the blame on the EU, at least in some people's perception. At least with the EU elections, the EU has a good excuse to force the UK out, or force them to take part in EU elections (which is counter to the promised leaving of the EU).



                        If May manages to pass the deal now (very unlikely, I know), no-deal is successfully averted which would be very good for the parties involved.



                        If May does not manage to come up with a good alternative then the UK will be out only a few weeks later. Yes, this causes the uncertainty to exist for a few more weeks, but it also gives some time to prepare as it's clearer now than ever before that no-deal is likely.



                        If May does manage to propose a new deal that is agreeable to the EU and UK parliament (maybe the UK decides to come up with a cross-party approach) that would be even better. It's in everyone's interest that there is a deal and the more people support a deal the more likely it is to be a lasting solution.



                        *In fact, the extra time may be helpful for some business's and countries' no-deal preparations. Dutch state media wrote the following:




                        Het uitstel van brexit lijkt Nederlandse ondernemers goed uit te komen. Twee derde heeft zich namelijk niet of maar een beetje voorbereid op een vertrek van de Britten, blijkt uit nieuwe cijfers van het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken.



                        Ook in de Nederlandse havens moet nog veel gebeuren om de export naar het Verenigd Koninkrijk ook na een Brits vertrek uit de Europese Unie soepel te laten verlopen. Deal óf geen deal.




                        Roughly translated by me:




                        The postponement of Brexit seems to be good for Dutch entrepreneurs. Two-thirds has made no or only little preparations for the British departure from the EU, statistics from the Dutch Foreign Ministry show.



                        Dutch ports, too, still need to do a lot to ensure exports continue to run smoothly. Deal or no deal.







                        share|improve this answer






























                          1














                          Extending a few weeks doesn't really hurt the EU*. Kicking them out now might put part of the blame on the EU, at least in some people's perception. At least with the EU elections, the EU has a good excuse to force the UK out, or force them to take part in EU elections (which is counter to the promised leaving of the EU).



                          If May manages to pass the deal now (very unlikely, I know), no-deal is successfully averted which would be very good for the parties involved.



                          If May does not manage to come up with a good alternative then the UK will be out only a few weeks later. Yes, this causes the uncertainty to exist for a few more weeks, but it also gives some time to prepare as it's clearer now than ever before that no-deal is likely.



                          If May does manage to propose a new deal that is agreeable to the EU and UK parliament (maybe the UK decides to come up with a cross-party approach) that would be even better. It's in everyone's interest that there is a deal and the more people support a deal the more likely it is to be a lasting solution.



                          *In fact, the extra time may be helpful for some business's and countries' no-deal preparations. Dutch state media wrote the following:




                          Het uitstel van brexit lijkt Nederlandse ondernemers goed uit te komen. Twee derde heeft zich namelijk niet of maar een beetje voorbereid op een vertrek van de Britten, blijkt uit nieuwe cijfers van het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken.



                          Ook in de Nederlandse havens moet nog veel gebeuren om de export naar het Verenigd Koninkrijk ook na een Brits vertrek uit de Europese Unie soepel te laten verlopen. Deal óf geen deal.




                          Roughly translated by me:




                          The postponement of Brexit seems to be good for Dutch entrepreneurs. Two-thirds has made no or only little preparations for the British departure from the EU, statistics from the Dutch Foreign Ministry show.



                          Dutch ports, too, still need to do a lot to ensure exports continue to run smoothly. Deal or no deal.







                          share|improve this answer




























                            1












                            1








                            1







                            Extending a few weeks doesn't really hurt the EU*. Kicking them out now might put part of the blame on the EU, at least in some people's perception. At least with the EU elections, the EU has a good excuse to force the UK out, or force them to take part in EU elections (which is counter to the promised leaving of the EU).



                            If May manages to pass the deal now (very unlikely, I know), no-deal is successfully averted which would be very good for the parties involved.



                            If May does not manage to come up with a good alternative then the UK will be out only a few weeks later. Yes, this causes the uncertainty to exist for a few more weeks, but it also gives some time to prepare as it's clearer now than ever before that no-deal is likely.



                            If May does manage to propose a new deal that is agreeable to the EU and UK parliament (maybe the UK decides to come up with a cross-party approach) that would be even better. It's in everyone's interest that there is a deal and the more people support a deal the more likely it is to be a lasting solution.



                            *In fact, the extra time may be helpful for some business's and countries' no-deal preparations. Dutch state media wrote the following:




                            Het uitstel van brexit lijkt Nederlandse ondernemers goed uit te komen. Twee derde heeft zich namelijk niet of maar een beetje voorbereid op een vertrek van de Britten, blijkt uit nieuwe cijfers van het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken.



                            Ook in de Nederlandse havens moet nog veel gebeuren om de export naar het Verenigd Koninkrijk ook na een Brits vertrek uit de Europese Unie soepel te laten verlopen. Deal óf geen deal.




                            Roughly translated by me:




                            The postponement of Brexit seems to be good for Dutch entrepreneurs. Two-thirds has made no or only little preparations for the British departure from the EU, statistics from the Dutch Foreign Ministry show.



                            Dutch ports, too, still need to do a lot to ensure exports continue to run smoothly. Deal or no deal.







                            share|improve this answer















                            Extending a few weeks doesn't really hurt the EU*. Kicking them out now might put part of the blame on the EU, at least in some people's perception. At least with the EU elections, the EU has a good excuse to force the UK out, or force them to take part in EU elections (which is counter to the promised leaving of the EU).



                            If May manages to pass the deal now (very unlikely, I know), no-deal is successfully averted which would be very good for the parties involved.



                            If May does not manage to come up with a good alternative then the UK will be out only a few weeks later. Yes, this causes the uncertainty to exist for a few more weeks, but it also gives some time to prepare as it's clearer now than ever before that no-deal is likely.



                            If May does manage to propose a new deal that is agreeable to the EU and UK parliament (maybe the UK decides to come up with a cross-party approach) that would be even better. It's in everyone's interest that there is a deal and the more people support a deal the more likely it is to be a lasting solution.



                            *In fact, the extra time may be helpful for some business's and countries' no-deal preparations. Dutch state media wrote the following:




                            Het uitstel van brexit lijkt Nederlandse ondernemers goed uit te komen. Twee derde heeft zich namelijk niet of maar een beetje voorbereid op een vertrek van de Britten, blijkt uit nieuwe cijfers van het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken.



                            Ook in de Nederlandse havens moet nog veel gebeuren om de export naar het Verenigd Koninkrijk ook na een Brits vertrek uit de Europese Unie soepel te laten verlopen. Deal óf geen deal.




                            Roughly translated by me:




                            The postponement of Brexit seems to be good for Dutch entrepreneurs. Two-thirds has made no or only little preparations for the British departure from the EU, statistics from the Dutch Foreign Ministry show.



                            Dutch ports, too, still need to do a lot to ensure exports continue to run smoothly. Deal or no deal.








                            share|improve this answer














                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer








                            edited 7 hours ago

























                            answered 7 hours ago









                            JJJJJJ

                            4,87622144




                            4,87622144






























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39688%2fwhy-did-the-eu-agree-to-delay-the-brexit-deadline%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                How to make a Squid Proxy server?

                                Is this a new Fibonacci Identity?

                                19世紀