[ad_1]
Theresa May, a former British Prime Minister and now a Conservative Party MP, harshly criticized the current UK head of government, Boris Johnson, who is part of her own party. In a speech delivered in the House of Commons, the lower house of the British Parliament, May accused the government of acting “reckless” and “irresponsible” in the ongoing Brexit negotiations, referring in particular to the possibility of Johnson violating some clauses of Withdrawal agreementThat is the agreement reached last year with the European Union.
The British government publicly acknowledged a few days ago its willingness to violate part of the agreement: something that would have few precedents in Europe and would be a probable violation of international law, with various consequences for future relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
May is not used to attacking publicly and with such harshness her successor in the government: that is why her words were seen as a sign of the intolerance of the more moderate wing of the party towards the line of negotiations on Brexit that Johnson is adopting with the European Union.
The ongoing negotiations concern future trade agreements between the European Union and the United Kingdom, that is to say, those that will regulate a part of the bilateral relations from January 2021, when the United Kingdom will also leave the single market and the union. customs (the “political Brexit”, let’s put it this way, already passed on January 31 of this year). The two parties had signed an agreement, found after very long and arduous negotiations: the Withdrawal agreement, which established the general rules for the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union and avoided the dreaded scenario of the so-called “No deal“The exit without agreement, considered disastrous by many observers.
– Read also: What’s in the Brexit deal
After years of internal disputes, splits and defections, tensions within the British Conservative Party escalated again in early September, when the Johnson-led government announced a reform of the internal market that, if passed, could violate some contained principles. in Withdrawal agreement. The problem arises from the fact that the Withdrawal agreement it had been possible because Johnson had relented on a number of issues concerning the Irish-Northern Ireland border.
Since the beginning of the negotiations, the European Union had insisted on not building a border between the two countries, which was only eliminated in 1997 with the Good Friday peace agreements, which had put an end to the violence that had marked history from Northern Ireland, the so-called Clouds. For the European Union, Northern Ireland (which is part of the United Kingdom) should have been aligned with European laws on rights and movement of goods and services, to avoid the creation of a rigid border. The then government of Theresa May considered this eventuality an unacceptable violation of the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom, since it would have created differences of treatment between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom; the subsequent government, led by Johnson, had instead accepted the European requests, defining “great” the compromise found.
A year later, however, Johnson seems to have changed his mind: with the bill announced in September, the British Prime Minister has questioned the Withdrawal agreement, saying that they do not want to respect some clauses contained in the agreement.
the Withdrawal agreement, for example, it requires the UK to comply with European state aid laws regarding state subsidies to Northern Ireland companies to prevent them from unfairly competing with Irish companies; Johnson’s proposed law provides that the British government can choose whether or not to notify the European Union of the existence of certain subsidies. the Withdrawal agreement It also states that Northern Ireland companies must go through some bureaucratic steps to ship their goods to the rest of the UK – the new law maintains that these steps are not necessary.
The European Union has made it clear that if the UK violates the Withdrawal agreement There will no longer be a basis for further discussing a trade agreement (in which the two parties are still very far apart on various issues, from state aid to fishing quotas in the British sea).
– Read also: France wants to win back the European Parliament
It’s unclear whether Johnson is proposing these changes out of tactic, hoping to achieve something more in the negotiations, or out of conviction, deliberately pushing the UK toward a full exit from the European Union without a trade deal. The problem is that leaving the European Union without a deal for good would be disastrous for the British economy: heavy tariffs would be imposed overnight on British products that would significantly increase their final price, making them much less competitive. A car made in the UK, for example, could cost an average of 3,000 euros more. Given that the UK exports many of its products to EU countries, we are talking about 46 per cent of total exports, the consequences would be potentially catastrophic for entire sectors of the UK economy.
For now, Johnson’s moves have had two consequences: further distancing British positions from European ones and enraging several influential members of the Conservative Party, especially those who, like May, would have concluded a Brexit deal different from the current one. Withdrawal agreement.
To avoid a total disruption within the party, Johnson announced an amendment to his bill on Thursday. The amendment establishes that the application of the most controversial part of the law, the one that gives the government the power to violate the terms of the law Withdrawal agreement, it must be approved by Parliament, which could block it. Iain Watson, political journalist from BBC, wrote that Johnson’s proposal could have solved the problem of tensions in the party in the short term, but not in the long term: especially since the British Parliament would still be called to vote to accept a violation of international law, a scenario that May and other conservatives find it unacceptable.
Johnson, in fact, did not show the will to take a step back in the negotiations with the European Union, nor to reconsider the possibility of violating the Withdrawal agreement. This line, in addition to pushing the United Kingdom towards a Brexit without a trade agreement, could significantly weaken the respectability and authority of the country at the international level, where compliance with the agreements is one of the fundamental rules of coexistence between states.
[ad_2]
