[ad_1]
Tomorrow, Tuesday, September 8, one of the last phases of the negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union will begin to find a trade agreement that should enter into force on January 1, 2021, when the United Kingdom completes its exit from the Union. The negotiations seemed very difficult from the beginning and were further complicated by the coronavirus pandemic: but observers and analysts agree that a commitment seems increasingly distant, especially due to the attitude maintained by the British government in recent days.
Last night the government led by Boris Johnson and supported by the conservatives announced that it will propose a reform of the internal market that will violate some principles contained in the Withdrawal agreement, the agreement reached with the European negotiators in autumn 2019 for the orderly exit from the Union. Today, however, Johnson will give a speech – whose content has been anticipated by newspapers close to the conservatives – in which he will give until October 15 to find a compromise, otherwise the United Kingdom will leave without any trade agreement, which Johnson should define ”. a good result ”, which will allow the country to“ prosper ”(contrary to what all available estimates indicate).
The government announcement on the unilateral overcoming of the Withdrawal agreement European experts received it with some amazement. “By violating a treaty it signed last year, the UK falls into the category of rogue states”, he wrote Brigid Laffan, a political scientist who teaches at the European University Institute. the Financial times He says the move has also surprised some government officials, who fear the UK may lose moral authority to criticize international treaty violations by other countries.
However, everyone agrees that the two announcements are part of a conscious strategy by the Johnson administration. But no one knows exactly what he wants to achieve.
The problem with Withdrawal agreement It stems from the fact that the compromise reached last fall between European and British negotiators was made possible because Johnson had relented on a number of issues related to the Irish-Northern Ireland border. Since the beginning of the negotiations, the European Union had insisted on not building a new border between the two countries, which was not eliminated until 1997 with the Good Friday peace accords.
To achieve this, Northern Ireland (which is part of the United Kingdom) should have been aligned with European laws on the rights and movement of goods and services. The Theresa May government saw this eventuality as an unacceptable violation of the UK’s territorial integrity; Instead, the Johnson government accepted the European requests and defined “great” the compromise found.
However, after a year, Johnson himself proposes that the British government may explicitly violate some clauses of the Withdrawal agreement. For example, the agreement requires the UK to comply with European state aid laws with respect to state subsidies to Northern Ireland companies (to prevent them from unfairly competing with Irish companies); Johnson’s proposed law holds 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.
“At the moment it could just be a question of tactics”, writes Holger Hestermeyer, who teaches International Dispute Resolution at King’s College London: “not necessarily a good tactic – ‘we won’t stick to agreements because we don’t like them’ is a good argument not to make new ones – but everyone’s tactic. But what consequences will it have? Giving an answer is not easy at all. “
Some think Johnson is simply trying to add more pressure to European negotiators with the aim of reaching a compromise in the last few days available: putting aside what would happen to the UK, the absence of a deal would seriously harm the countries that They have important commercial relations with British companies, especially Ireland, France and the Netherlands. Yesterday, Irish State Television he knew it that the British government has been asking the Irish government for days to show some flexibility in Withdrawal agreementAccording to some, it is a sign that you are trying by all means to find a compromise.
Leaving the European Union permanently without a trade deal 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% of total exports, the consequences would be potentially catastrophic for entire sectors of the UK economy.
For all these reasons, many argue that Johnson will do everything possible to find some kind of agreement with European negotiators, with whom the distance remains very great on various issues, including the rights of European fishermen to access British waters, measures to prevent British companies from unfairly competing with European companies with the help of their government, and the resolution of disputes that may arise in the coming years.
Other observers believe, however, that the British government is simply preparing the ground to accustom its electorate to the idea that the United Kingdom will leave the Union without any agreement, blaming the claims of European negotiators. “With regard to the British government’s approach to Brexit, ideology prevails over pragmatism,” explained a European diplomat. Political. In short, the British government could decide to raise political capital by making good on a promise to leave the European Union, at any cost, rather than being trapped for years in a kind of limbo unwelcome by the Conservative electorate.
This morning is the Times both of them Telegraph, the two most institutional newspapers close to the Conservative Party, opened in anticipation of Johnson’s speech without questioning his statements or expressing skepticism about the government’s decisions and strategies.
[ad_2]
