[ad_1]
The UK government has confirmed that it does not intend to comply with some clauses of the Brexit agreement with the European Union, the so-called Withdrawal agreement, passed in early January by the British Parliament and therefore becomes law.
The decision was confirmed by Prime Minister Boris Johnson after days of indiscretion, and drew a lot of criticism: both for the way it was communicated – the European Commission accused the UK of having betrayed the trust necessary to continue negotiations today. ongoing, on the future trade agreement, both because of the content of the law, which could violate some rules of international law.
Laura Kuenssberg, Head of the Political Editorial Board of BBC news, wrote that in recent days sources within the British government had called the law “a nuclear option”. “In the end, they decided to push the button,” Kuenssberg writes.
The decision of the government led by Boris Johnson could have very concrete consequences already in the coming weeks. The European Commission has asked Johnson to withdraw the proposed law, suggesting that he will otherwise abandon ongoing negotiations on the future trade deal. If the two sides do not reach a compromise and on January 1 the United Kingdom completes the exit from the Union without any agreement, the short-term consequences on the British economy and, to a lesser extent, on the European countries that have greater ties commercial. UK – would be extremely negative.
Very concerned by the announcements of the British government about its intentions to breach the Withdrawal Agreement. This would violate international law and undermine trust. Pacta sunt servanda = the foundation of prosperous future relationships.
– Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) September 9, 2020
“The agreements must be respected”, tweeted the president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, citing a Latin motto
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.
Now, however, 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); the law proposed by Johnson (PDF) in article 44 maintains that the British government can choose to notify or not to notify the European Union of the existence of certain subsidies, effectively exceeding the content of those already approved Withdrawal agreement. Paragraph 42, instead, gives the government the power to ignore international laws when it comes to the transport of goods – a measure contrary to international law, given that British laws, like those of most Western countries, establish the supremacy of international treaties. , if in force, with respect to national laws.
The British government has insisted that changes in the Withdrawal agreement, and the consequent violation of international treaties would be “very specific and limited”, and the document had yet to be clarified as it was excessively ambiguous on some points (shortly after it was approved, Johnson and the government spoke of it exclusively in enthusiastic terms).
???? Brandon Lewis confirms that the government will violate international law on the EU withdrawal agreement:
“Yes, this violates international law in a very specific and limited way.” pic.twitter.com/6B8pU5M2cH
– Adam Black (@AdamJSchwarz) September 8, 2020
Some observers explain that Johnson’s decision is part of a precise strategy: “The government has precipitated a crisis to try to move the European Union,” writes analyst Mujtaba Rahman, who works for the think tank Eurasia Group.
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.
Furthermore, explicitly violating a national treaty would permanently damage the Johnson government’s image with UK allies around the world: said Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s senior adviser Joe Biden. guardian that the passage of the law would compromise relations between the United States and the United Kingdom, close allies for decades.
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 UK will leave the Union without any kind of agreement, blaming the claims of European negotiators. A recent article from Financial times For example, it speculates that the Johnson government could agree to leave the European Union without an agreement to better manage the economic recovery after the coronavirus pandemic, and have more freedom to guarantee subsidies and state aid to British companies and multinationals that will decide to invest in the UK.
[ad_2]
