( Three minute read)
We said that. We did not say that: If you do that. If you don’t do that: Alignment, no Alignment: Agreed not Agreed: Explicable not Explicable: Phase one Phase two: This amount that amount, on the table off the table: Deal or no Deal: In our Out: sets out the terms of the divorce and paves the way for Phase 2 of negotiations on future relations between London and the Twenty-Seven.
Anyone with an ounce of sawdust between their ears knows all of the above is total bollix.
Just look at some of the blonker’s reactions.
“Theresa May won,” said Michael Gove, pro-Brexit environment minister who is eyeing his estate.
Philip Hammond, hailed the “boost for the British economy” that represents a text that lifts some uncertainties.
Nigel Farage, “the move to the second phase of humiliation”
The only comment that might come true if the EU block his pension or at least have it payed out of the settlement.
It time for some hard facts:
The ambiguity of Friday’s agreement on Ireland alone illustrates the difficulties that lie ahead.
Spain that argues that any agreement would require its blessing, because the area is not part of the UK, as is the case with Northern Ireland, but a colony with a disputed status. It is likely to wield a veto over any Brexit deal for Gibraltar after the EU-27 backed Madrid in its draft negotiating guidelines for forthcoming divorce talks between the UK and the bloc.
Both are a poisonous topic for the upcoming negotiations.
Not only has Brexit become a subject of confrontation between the two communities of Northern Ireland, but the insoluble Irish equation sums up the central dilemma, that of the choice between a “hard Brexit” and an agreement maintaining the maximum of links with the EU.
It’s generally agreed that the “divorce deal,” setting out the arrangements for Britain’s departure from the EU, can be sealed by Brussels and London.
But Britain’s new relationship with the bloc is a different matter.
Under Article 50 an exit deal requires a qualified majority (72% of members states) to pass, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, whereas a comprehensive new partnership deal (or “mixed agreement”) requires unanimous assent in the Council and ratification by national or subnational parliaments.
If the deal “is being ‘loaded up’ with competencies of the member states, this would turn it into a mixed agreement [affecting both EU and national legislation], which would require unanimity in the European Council and the ratification of all member states for it to be sealed. Even a transitional deal could affect national legislation.
Therefore, any change of government or head of state near the deadlines for talks or ratification will introduce uncertainty into the process.
There are another 12 elections scheduled across the 27 member states during the two-year negotiation period.
All countries work to slightly different time frames, but the systems of proportional representation and coalition politics in most EU states often result in extended periods following elections where there is no official government; the record being 541 days following the 2010 Belgian general election. For example, in 2013 it took 86 days to form a coalition government in Germany.
Will there be new faces?
If the national parliaments of the 27 countries remaining in the EU — and perhaps also some regional parliaments — are all to get a say, it could make the passage of the Brexit deal impossible. However the European Union’s 27 remaining national parliaments are unlikely to have the power of veto over a future Brexit trade deal with Britain.
One way or the other the best, the cheapest and the least complicated deal would be a no deal.
Transitional trade agreements are politically highly explosive.
Do not anticipate the perfect unity of Twenty Seven.
England wants a level playing field so as to be able to do trade deals outside the EU.
Blinded by their refusal to see the Europe as a project policy beyond the single market,
Let them do so .
However under WTO the rules are simple. It requires every country to reduce their tariffs and subsidies to the same level, but in reality these cuts are applied selectively in favor of rich countries.
There can’t be have your cake and eat it.
Al human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.