I know that you have a lot on your plate, and probably will never read this blog.
So I keep it short.
As you have said, “we are entering uncharted waters” with the British government still wracked by internal disagreement over what kind of deal they want.
This is the very reason that any forthcoming agreement cannot be fragmented into piecemeal negotiations.
Rather each and every area negotiated upon and agreed must become watertight. Non-renegotiable -and binding in an overall agreement.
If cherrypicking is to be avoided it must be the whole package or no package, otherwise, the agreement will be subject to legal confirmation for years to come.
If not we will witness the simultaneous unravelling of both the UK and the EU.
The EU cannot wait for a crisis to erupt in full force before we start looking for answers.
We had better understand our mindes before algorithms make our minds up for us.
Both the EU and any future Uk government must not have the right to scrap, tamper with the agreement without mutual agreement from all the EU members states.
My vote makes no difference is plausibly a part of the modern-day phenomenon of algorithm analyse voting that has lead to both the election of Donal Trump and Boris Jonhson.
It is resulting in the loss or deliberate yielding up of decision-making power by national governments to other organisations with Social media platforms both domestic and international— Like Facebook, Twitter, etc.
Combine this with Ngo’s, quangos, the law courts, business corporations, central banks, the E.U., the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization and its no wonder that many are no longer content as voters to be the foot soldiers of a social or religious bloc.
They want to make a difference individually and although in a mass democracy this may lead to inevitable frustration, few would want to return to a time of extreme political polarisation or digital dictatorship.
The symptoms of short term popularism driven by social media platforms and the smartphone are leading to a no-deal Brexit are the same worldwide.
Denunciations of the system, citizen disengagement from mainstream parties, electoral volatility and/or apathy, the rise of dissenting movements that appeal to large numbers who are, or feel themselves to be, disfranchised or ignored by an establishment dominated by uncontrollable and often faceless forces are replacing old political systems.
Hence the perception that parties and politicians are no longer willing or able to represent their voters, that they are “all the same” and that politics has become an irrelevant smokescreen for the machinations of special interests and lobby groups.
When relatively few people are losing out—these changes may not seem to matter much. They may even seem desirable: “pooling of sovereignty,” removal of political interference from civil society, increasing checks on the executive by domestic and international courts, subsidiarity in decision-making, encouragement of inward investment, and so on.
This creates a political and administrative burden that can neither manage nor surrender—a great cause of popular discontent.
Not so, of course, when things suddenly go wrong.
One has only to look at England:
A combination of capitalism and socialism in a highly centralized system without a nationally elected government makes England today a very unusual place.
This oddity has opened up a constitutional free-for-all.
However, national identity, not administrative or economic efficiency, is the core of both devolution and independence— and the rest is window-dressing with the past affecting us all in more complex and deep-seated ways than in countries that have experienced violent historic ruptures.
Community loyalties, however deep-rooted, are not permanent.
Whatever happens in England, there will remain the question of how to govern a big, growing, diverse, crowded, and increasingly self-conscious England.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
There isn’t long to go until England’s scheduled departure from the EU when we will all see if there is any honesty in politics?
Are we going to witness “a side deal” between the EU and the UK re the backstop?
At the moment the Irish Government and EU leaders are sticking to the position there will be no discussions with the UK on how to manage a no-deal on the Border until after the UK has left the EU.
While the new Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, now claims the backstop is “dead” a kamikaze no-deal Brexit will change that.
When it comes to the backstop we are talking about Northern Ireland, not Ulster.
Maybe Ireland, as part of Europe, would be the saner option for nationalists; even some unionists. The reality is who would pay for it the EU, Ireland or England or a combination of all three.
When you include the British expats already living in the Republic, a united Ireland would contain about a million people who identify as British: that reality would have to be recognised and somehow accommodated. Britain’s desire to be more British would actually make Ireland more British and Britain less so: because it would have lost the North, and probably Scotland soon after. At least it would reveal that when Brexiteers say Britain, they really mean England. Sorry, Wales.
Of course, is the there is another hypertechnical position.
If the EU fails to support its member Ireland it could opt to join the United Kingdom.
Either options would be fiendishly complex to organise and require money, imagination and empathy to put together.
There will be no free lunch. It’ll be like starting Ireland over from scratch.
Back to the present.
One way or another the UK now want part of a reality or all of an illusion?
While new beginnings usually offer the chance of a fresh approach, the new Uk government’s approach to date suggests that we are more likely to witness further attempts to avoid the tough decisions and to offer little honesty on the very real trade-offs that Brexit will force on the British public.
Just like today in the Commons, the Irish parliament in Dublin back in 1921 was fiercely polarised between those who accepted the recent Anglo-Irish treaty and those who saw it as failing to offer the promised full Irish republic.
In 1921, the political division between the pro- and anti-treaty groups in Ireland was fuelled broadly by two radically opposing interpretations of the treaty. The pro-treaty faction claimed that the agreement creating the limited Free State was the best they could get and was a stepping stone to further independence. On the anti-treaty side, the same agreement was seen as a failure to achieve what was promised, a Republic, and those who signed it were traitors.
Mr Johnson with no meaning full mandate seems set to try to avoid the backstop through different means—either by trying to renegotiate the deal with the EU or by leaving the EU with no deal all ‘very gung-ho.’
As an Irishman, I am duty-bound to lend my offerings to this.
My first offering is with a no-deal the Northern Ireland border becomes an EU border. As such there will have to be border checks and tariffs.
There is an obligation on the EU and its member states to remain unity together if it wants to keep the main principle of the European Union – Peace.
The 1998 Good Friday Agreement was a key part of this peace process. One of the agreement’s three main points was creating the infrastructure for “North-South co-operation” between the Irish government and the newly-created Northern Irish Assembly.
Both the UK and EU agreed that, in negotiating a deal on the relationship after Brexit, keeping the border open and upholding the terms of the Good Friday Agreement was of critical importance even if future trade negotiations fail, there should be provisions in place to ensure that the border remains open, as it is today.
That principle is the Irish backstop. The day’s of an Englishman’s word has long gone.
As part of Brexit, the UK intends to leave both the single market and customs union.
The terms of the Good Friday Agreement can not be upheld without the UK being part of these two things. Customs and regulatory checks on goods will be necessary in some form (possibly away from the border). Were the UK to leave the EU with “no-deal” Northern Ireland (as part of the UK) would have different customs and regulatory standards to Ireland (as part of the EU).
This means there could and will be a need for customs checks on goods to be introduced at the border, which could create a “hard border” with physical infrastructure, like cameras or guard posts. All undermine the principle of North-South cooperation as set out in the Good Friday agreement.
In March, the UK government set out its plan for avoiding a hard border in Ireland in the case of no deal.
It says it would introduce no new tariffs on goods crossing the border from Ireland into Northern Ireland, and no new checks or controls at the border itself (although some new customs requirements would be placed on a small number of goods, these would happen away from the border. This is a unilateral measure set out by the UK government, meaning it only affects goods crossing from Ireland into Northern Ireland.
As for goods going the other way (from Northern Ireland into Ireland) the exact details of how this would be done remain unclear.
No matter how it is achieved it will lead to different regulations for Northern Ireland compared with the “rest of the UK”.
Whilst it is true that the 9 counties of Ulster do not form Northern Ireland (3 are in the republic), historically, Ulster was a province of Ireland and when Northern Ireland became a part of the UK in 1922, it was agreed that this province would be split as it is today; the 6 counties of Ulster that form Northern Ireland (Londonderry, Antrim, Down, Tyrone, Armagh and Fermanagh) and the 3 retained by the republic; Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal. On this basis, the protestant or unionist collective term Ulster is deliberately provocative to nationalists as the British ‘stole’ and retained part of their country.
Finally:
On a practical note can someone please tell me if I buy something online in the UK which is no longer a Member of the EU will I be relying on the terms and conditions associated with the purchase rather then-current statutory instruments.
The crying tragedy is when a world needs a coming together to tackle a very penurious future building a wall that will not keep anything out nor in capitalism in all its forms must go beyond just shareholder value.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.
English is a funny language, we all know that but the language of Brexit which is now clear.
A head shake means “Yes” while nodding means “No.”
At £500 to £800 million a week is the biggest farce in British History.
Millions in taxpayer money have been spent on electioneering and billions on hiring civil servants and contingency planning.
What’s in a name?
Whatever form Brexit takes we now have Johnson’s rhetoric trying to blame Ireland for the mess. (re the backstop)
Let’s get a few things crystal clear.
Ireland nor the EU called a referendum in England.
It is total bullshit to endeavour to shift the blame for a self-inflected SITUATION which has now turned into a catch 22 situation.
The whole situation might have past historical overtones but it about from the evolution of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) under Nigel Farage after a landslide victory for them in the European elections in 2014 by topping the poll ahead of Labour and the Conservatives.
One may argue that the main person or figure to blame for the current Brexit crisis that Britain is currently under would be both David Cameron and Theresa May.
However, it is clear that the first past the post (FPTP) system work against smaller parties such as the Liberal Democrats and UKIP and this benefitted the Conservatives.
With this beneficial election system, David Cameron decided to call a referendum on membership of the EU. This was proven to be the biggest and most catastrophic mistake in British history.
Another key place that blame can be apportioned is Margaret Thatcher.
After British accession to the EU, many people in the Conservative party, including Nigel Farage and Ann Widdecombe were against EU membership.
Even after the resignation of Margaret Thatcher from the Conservatives, she said that she would have never signed such a crucial treaty as the Maastricht Treaty. Margaret Thatcher, widely known as a cruel figure in Ireland, also had her prolonged reservations about EU membership and integration. After her resignation, despite the pro-European stance by John Major as prime minister, Britain was still deeply divided on the issue of EU membership.
Most of all, the key place that blame can be apportioned to is the Conservative party as a whole. It was and is to blame for the evolution of Nigel Farage Brexit party.
The evolution of Nigel Farage and the Brexit party is particularly worrying for the future of Britain and its future relationship with the EU and other countries associated with the EU as it threatens any long-lasting relationship, deal or no deal.
It is now becoming abundantly clear that the Conservative party has and still is destroying Britain forever with their divisions destroying England as a Union.
The Labour Party also has to shoulder a heavy share of responsibility for Brexit, on account of its half-hearted support for the “Remain” campaign, and more generally because it has been unable to form a strong and credible opposition to the Conservatives since losing power in 2010.
Without a shadow of a doubt, it is time for any British government to put any Brexit deal to preferenda which would have options such as remain, no deal, WTO Brexit, customs’ union Brexit, etc.
This in its self will not solve the division within Britain.
Whichever way anyone voted, the paralysis of indecision of this period has been corrosive and damaging to the union. Britain seems to pretend the EU doesn’t exist. Go anywhere in Europe, and the EU flag flies beside the national flag; go almost anywhere in Britain, and there is not an EU flag to be seen.
The EU Commission must also take a good part of the blame for so many people in Britain choosing Brexit.
The EU has moved forward at breakneck speed since the EEC was first created, and it has done so with scant or no regard for public opinion in member states.
Last but not least large parts of the UK media, notably the popular press, has for decades played a major role in promoting any story that damages the image or reputation of the EU, while failing to report the stories that show the advantages and benefits of the EU.
However, in business, as in life, timing is everything. For the Europeans, the exit will happen at midnight, Brussels time. For the British, it will happen at a less dramatic 11pm, London time.
By then it will be too late to realize that we all live in a world where tools and information that were previously only available to governments are now at everyone’s fingertip and there is no longer a need to abdicate responsibility for deciding what’s best for us.
Indeed it could be said that the EU or Britain are no longer relevant in the modern world because of the myriad of problems facing the world with the insanity of its politicians combined and with a steady diet of media mental poison is driving us all to the point of extinction.
In legitimizing the message of reclaiming Britain’s sovereignty it, unfortunately, lacks patriotism. Like everywhere it is an ongoing struggle between nationalism and internationalism.
Its time to get real and realize that the EU is not a free-trade area; it is a customs union.
As such its no wonder it has to have and will always have borders whether Ireland, England or Northern Ireland or any others like it or not.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicking or abuse chucked in the bin.
If you asked the question who are the DUP to the English public I would say 80% would not be able to answer the question.
If you asked the question in Ireland 90% would answer a Northern Ireland Unionist Party out of date that is based in bigotry antie catholic and united Ireland rhetoric. Citing the territorial claims in the Irish constitution, which the party viewed as illegal and a threat to the security and religious freedom of Protestants in Northern Ireland.
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP),
A “theocon” grouping whose ideas are unusual in today’s western Europe. To an American, especially from the deep South, the party would seem much more familiar.
You might call it a mixture of old-time religion and secular nativism.
The party is the creation of firebrand Protestant Evangelical Minister Ian Paisley.
Reverend Paisley also founded the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster and was characterized by his entrenched Unionist views and his hostile opposition to the Catholic Church. Paisley helped found the Ulster Protestant Volunteers.
In 1969 members were involved, along with the UVF, in exploding a number of bombs they hoped would be blamed on the IRA (who had not begun their bombings), provoking a Protestant backlash and bringing down the Unionist government of Northern Ireland, seen by them and Paisley as having gone soft on Catholics.
Founded in 1971 by a hard-line faction of the UUP ( Ulster Unionist Party) which was at the centre of a bloody sectarian divide during Northern Ireland’s Troubles – a conflict involving rival paramilitary groups and the British Army which claimed more than 4,000 lives, 50,000 injured, and an estimated 40,000 bereaved or traumatized over 30 years.
In 1975 the DUP contested elections as part of the United Ulster Unionist Council (UUUC) alliance, which rejected the notion of sharing power with the nationalist (and largely Roman Catholic).
Core to the identity of the DUP is its representation as a party that guarantees to act as a firewall against Irish unity.
The DUP boycotted the talks when Sinn Féin was admitted in 1997. The product of the talks, the 1998 Good Friday Agreement (Belfast Agreement) on steps leading to a new power-sharing government in Northern Ireland, was rejected by the DUP, which denounced the new Northern Ireland Assembly as a dilution of British sovereignty and objected to the inclusion of Sinn Féin in the Assembly and the new executive body.
There is now a growing question about the influence of the DUP and its opposition to the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement.
In the snap election for the British House of Commons that Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May called for June 2017, the DUP added two seats to bring its representation in Westminster to 10 seats.
May then courted the support of the DUP so that she could form a minority government relying on the DUP’s 10 votes on crucial issues to push her party over the 326-vote threshold for a majority.
After securing the promise of £1 billion in extra funding for Northern Ireland over the next two years, on June 26, 2017, the DUP agreed to provide “confidence and supply” support for May’s government.
The DUP staunchly supports union with Britain.
The sense of political identity currently offered by the DUP leadership reflects a change of emphasis away from cultural unionism towards an agenda drawing on more civic understandings of politics.
However, it has blocked efforts to pass a Climate Change Act in Northern Ireland, as well as having a history of supporting creationism and blocking legislation on the legalisation of abortion and gay marriage.
It is the only political party in Ireland to support Brexit.
The DUP induced a political crisis in Northern Ireland through a “green energy” scheme. The final cost to the taxpayer for this fiasco is expected to be upwards of £400 million.
The party is opposed to abortion and gay marriage, but it goes further than that.
Members of the party have described LGBT people as “disgusting” and an “abomination”.
The DUP traditionally avoided all contact with the Irish government.
Yet Arlene Foster is the political figure who holds in her hands the future of Brexit.
Her beliefs were forged in the bloody years of Northern Ireland: her father was shot in the head and she escaped an attack on her school bus.
Almost everything you need to know about the DUP and Brexit can be gauged from its name, with the emphasis on “unionist”.
To the DUP, the backstop represented its worst fears come to life:
But ultimately, what does the party want from Brexit?
First of all, the DUP has said it still wants the UK to leave the EU with a deal – but it must be one that treats Northern Ireland no differently from the rest of the UK.
It is hard to imagine a group less suited to this crucial role.
A political NI party of narrow-minded, intransigent bigots who care nothing for the wider interests who relish in a political mindset of ransom and provincialism that was is probably still is attached to the Ulster Volunteer Force.
The party is continually in denial about reality. Representing just 36% of the last General election in NI that voted to remain.
A party that has been spoonfed English taxpayers cash, including a 1 billion, to support England departure from the EU.
Wake up Britain!
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
The UK is making a spectacular demonstration of how to make a fool of itself with the entire world looking on.
There is no doubt that a hard Brexit will cost the rest of us a lot – there’s no question about that – but it is nothing compared to what is waiting for England.
If the UK manages to agree on the Withdrawal the paper it is written on it won’t be worth toilet paper within 24 hours.
Why?
Because there will be a New European Commission and a General Election in the UK.
First, the trucks will be jammed all the way to Wales, because the borders are back. Then the fuel will run out at filling stations and medicines will run out in pharmacies. And once all the Polish plumbers have gone home, there will be nobody to call when the EU blocks the toilet.
Then the Russians will realise they have invested far too much money in the English real estate market and will be incensed because their investments are going down the toilet.
It doesn’t work to declare the government a kind of foreign power, whose rise can’t really be explained, we have all seen that before.
Unfortunately, in a democracy, any government that has come into office without its leader elected by the people ( An expression of the will of the people) is doomed
This is why England needs a representative democracy not first past the post.
Almost everyone who I have heard talking about Brexit belong to the British establishment, meaning they went to an outrageously expensive private school and completed their studies at Cambridge or Oxford. What in the name of God do they teach them? It certainly can’t be skills that prepare them for the real world.
Put your hand on heart, what does it tell us about a country when a man like Johnson is regarded as one of the clearest-thinking minds in the circle of power?
The disadvantage of being intelligent is that it hurts when you act stupid.
For a nation, the problem begins when the level of stupidity at the top is unusually high because the smarter people have thrown in the towel.
This is generally the point at which decline becomes inevitable.
There is a solution to all of this. Scrap leaving for five years. Get properly involved with the European project. Archive the reforms you want to see. Then leave if you wish.
Take a retrospective look at what Politicians have said about Brexit.
I quote ” THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT THAT WE WILL HAVE TO DO WITH THE EU SHOULD BE ONE OF THE EASIEST IN HUMAN HISTORY” Liam Fox
The most hyperbolic prediction of all time.
There are more than two million Brits already live in another EU member state.
All are welcome the more the merry.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
So while it is wrong to say “The UK can not rejoin the EU”, one might say that “The UK can not rejoin the EU and regain all the special privileges it had”.
There is no special procedure for readmission. There is no special route back into the EU for past members.
A key factor here is the nature of the membership that would be on offer.
It is almost inconceivable that newer member states who have assumed all the obligations of membership would be willing to see a larger and richer state being granted special treatment.
It is quite obvious that if England were to reapply it would be put on a fast track to membership. However, the EU members may not be willing to make concessions that would put the UK back in the position in which it left the EU. It would probably have to forget about their old opt-outs and have to accept everything the EU throws at them.
It’s one thing when a current and long-standing member of a club opts-out of changes to the club… It’s something completely different for a “new” member who wants to join – they pretty much must accept everything a membership entails.
This answer seems incomplete to me.
(1) While the UK could re-join the EU in theory, in practice this is about as unlikely as Turkey joining. Over recent decades, discontent in the EU with its uncooperative member has been almost as strong as discontent in the UK with the EU. It is extremely likely that someone will veto a new application even without the privileges.
When politicians say the UK could never rejoin the EU, they’re talking about the practical and political impediments, not any legal ones.
If the UK rejoined, they’d have to start completely from scratch.
All the exceptions and favours they’ve negotiated from the EU (such as using the pound instead of the Euro) would be gone. The actual process to rejoin is also as long and arduous as the daunting task the UK now faces in leaving the EU.
As I have said even if the UK’s political climate did a 180, admission to the EU can be vetoed by any one of its current members.
If, say, France decided they didn’t want the UK to rejoin, that’d be that. That isn’t some absurd hypothetical; the UK originally was blocked by France until 1973. Imagine what would happen the next time around, now that the UK has publicly thumbed its nose at the EU and weakened the entire enterprise.
So yes, the UK could reapply, but the concessions they’d have to make and the headache of applying makes it very unlikely.
A no-deal Brexit remains by far the greatest threat to the status of EU citizens in the UK and English people in the EU.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.
≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: If — and it’s a big if — the UK wants to keep the Good Friday Agreement, the only satisfactory option is full [EU] membership.
Despite the ambiguous constitutional status of referenda in the UK and the narrowness of the vote, the main political parties fall over each other to “respect the verdict of the people”
The people, however, had (as it is now apparent) little concept of what an out vote involved:
First, even if the country rapidly regrets its decision, there will be no going back to the deal the UK currently has. If Britain ever sought to rejoin the EU, it could not be on the terms of membership the country previously enjoyed. The UK’s budget rebate, exemption from Schengen and opt-outs from the euro and judicial cooperation will not be on the table again.
Second, returning to the EU on terms less palatable to UK voters will be hard to sell to them, rendering a future decision to rejoin politically implausible.
So the country now finds its self in a catch 22 scenario with the only feasible course of action is a lengthy transition period in which Britain could digest what it really means to be a member of the European Union and what it really means not to be a member.
One dimension of this scenario has received surprisingly little attention and that is at the end of this period England was to reapply.
First, the opt-out from the euro will no longer apply, with the best the UK can hope for is to emulate Sweden – legally “in derogation” of its obligation to accede, rather than having an opt-out as the UK and Denmark do – by making no effort to join.
In practice, this could be enough to enable the UK to retain the pound indefinitely, but if (and it is far from implausible) other countries accede to the euro following Brexit, leaving only one or two Member States outside, the position would be harder to sustain.
Let’s look at a transition period. What is it?
It is basically membership in all but name.
What problem is that for the EU27? Frankly speaking, none.
The alternative is to renounce the Good Friday Agreement, and then England can indeed leave the single market and customs union. Or England keeps the UK inside the European Union because democratically, that’s the only serious option.
That status comes with obligations. Applying and enforcing EU law, contributing to the EU budget, with no change in the freedom of circulation. Nothing changes, except that the Brits are not sitting at the table.
Now Brexit is done — the UK is it is no longer a member state — but it is still in the transition.
For Leavers, the conclusion is much simpler: however much they object to elements of the withdrawal deal or proposals for the future relationship, they will be worth swallowing for now because the bigger prize of leaving the EU will be all but irreversible.
The cannier pro-Brexit members of the Cabinet seem to have grasped this.
In a world of Donald Trump’s, Putin’s, “What is the point of Brexit?”
Colloidal damage Ireland, its economy not to mention the decoupling of Northern Ireland and perhaps Scotland.
The terms of membership the UK currently has are very unlikely to be on offer in future.
The EU you may wish to rejoin will be different from the one you are leaving.
Stop being angry. Stop behaving as though you are still campaigning. And stop complaining that stupid voters chose to believe the lies of the Brexiters and not your own, more sophisticated lies.
Let’s SEE 7 MILLION MARCHING. There is just about enough time left to add “future deal” to the list. There has never been a better time to challenge conventional wisdom than after such a disaster.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.
Just imagine that a new British government — because it does not feel bound by whatever the previous government did — says: ‘OK, we believe the decision to leave that way was the wrong decision and we want to reconsider.’
THE FIRST PLACE TO START IS TO EMPHASIZE THE PROBLEM:
The members of the union do not have moral or ethical need to negotiate a deal for a leaving member.
Other than the loss of a members market and financial contributions, there is no obligation on the European Union to change its rules of membership to accommodate a leaving member.
IT WAS NOT THE EUROPEAN UNION WISH TO LEAVE ENGLAND.
It is not the duty of the European Union to put forward a package with new terms and conditions to satisfy a leaving member.
It is its duty to protect existing members privileges of membership.
England threatening the EU is not new.
It is up to England either to hold another referendum or have a general election, neither of which will solve the problems which are now exposed by the first referendum and devolution.
We are looking at the realms of an empire coming home to roost, not a country whose people voted for the sovereignty of the Conservative party (who are in power thanks to the bribery of 9 DUP Northern Ireland political bigots). at the expense of the U.K.
A no deal might not be the end of the world, however, it will damage both the European economy and the U.K. Economy with Ireland and Northern Ireland being affected the worst.
There is only one solution left. An extension of Article 50 until an associate agreement can be achieved.
IT’S TIME FOR SOME DILEXIT MULTUM POLICES NOT GDP.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.
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.
Or
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.