May, back in Parliament, tries to defend Brexit extension to skeptical lawmakers
Read more at:
Showing posts with label Theresa May. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theresa May. Show all posts
Saturday, April 13, 2019
Monday, April 8, 2019
Britain - Brexit: Customs Union at Centre of compromise talks
Brexit: customs union at centre of compromise talks ahead of crucial EU summit
Note EU Digest : The problem is that Theresa May has not been able to put a concrete proposal together supported by a parliamentary majority in the British parliament, and keeps wasting EU members time and finances discussing "pies in the sky".
It is high time now the EU starts to play some hard ball with Theresa May, and gives her an "indefinite extension" until she can come up with a concrete proposal, which is backed by a majority in the British parliament.
Note EU Digest : The problem is that Theresa May has not been able to put a concrete proposal together supported by a parliamentary majority in the British parliament, and keeps wasting EU members time and finances discussing "pies in the sky".
It is high time now the EU starts to play some hard ball with Theresa May, and gives her an "indefinite extension" until she can come up with a concrete proposal, which is backed by a majority in the British parliament.
Read more at: https://www.euronews.com/2019/04/07/brexit-uk-prime-minister-says-there-is-still-a-chance-of-a-compromise-deal
Wednesday, April 3, 2019
Britain: A labour Conservative coalition on Brexit?
What is UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s policy on Brexit?
Read more at:
Sunday, March 17, 2019
Britain - Brexit: Theresa May plays "hardball" to push her Brexit deal even though she calls it a compromise vote
Theresa May asks MPs for 'honourable compromise' on Brexit
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Britain - Brexit: British MPs reject Brexit deal by 391 to 242 despite May securing changes to backstop - by Alice Tidey & Rachael Kennedy
British lawmakers on Tuesday rejected May's Brexit deal for a second time with 391 votes against, 242 in favour.
MPs first rejected the deal on January 14 by a margin of 230, handing May the worst defeat of any sitting government in British parliamentary history.
The prime minister said immediately after the vote that MPs now face "an unenviable choice" and said she still believes that her deal is the best and only deal available.
May said if lawmakers backed a no-deal Brexit on Wednesday, it would become government policy.
A division list released by the Commons website shows that 75 Conservative MPs rebelled against May.
They were joined by 232 Labour MPs, 17 independent MPs, and every single MPs from Scotland's National party (35), the Liberal Democrats (11) and Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (10)
Bottom ine: the Brexit deal is clearly dead - and to make any sense of what the British really want, specially now the British Public has become more familiar with what breaking away from the EU and the Common Market would eventually mean to the economy and them, and the danger of becoming totally subservient to the US, is to have a second referendum.
This is the only way to stop this chaos, after the political establishment totally failed the people. It is high time to put the control of the future of Britain back in the hands of the British people, before the country implodes.
Read more: British MPs reject Brexit deal by 391 to 242 despite May securing changes to backstop | Euronews
MPs first rejected the deal on January 14 by a margin of 230, handing May the worst defeat of any sitting government in British parliamentary history.
The prime minister said immediately after the vote that MPs now face "an unenviable choice" and said she still believes that her deal is the best and only deal available.
May said if lawmakers backed a no-deal Brexit on Wednesday, it would become government policy.
A division list released by the Commons website shows that 75 Conservative MPs rebelled against May.
They were joined by 232 Labour MPs, 17 independent MPs, and every single MPs from Scotland's National party (35), the Liberal Democrats (11) and Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (10)
Bottom ine: the Brexit deal is clearly dead - and to make any sense of what the British really want, specially now the British Public has become more familiar with what breaking away from the EU and the Common Market would eventually mean to the economy and them, and the danger of becoming totally subservient to the US, is to have a second referendum.
This is the only way to stop this chaos, after the political establishment totally failed the people. It is high time to put the control of the future of Britain back in the hands of the British people, before the country implodes.
Read more: British MPs reject Brexit deal by 391 to 242 despite May securing changes to backstop | Euronews
Friday, March 8, 2019
Britain -- Brexit: May on course of another BREXIT defeat after Barnier says NO to more changes to the agreement
'A slap in the face': Barnier sets May on course for Brexit defeat
Sunday, February 24, 2019
British PM May considers plan to delay Brexit by two months
British Prime Minister Theresa May is considering a plan under which Britain's exit from the European Union would be delayed for up to two months, the Telegraph reported on Sunday.
The British government officials have drawn up a series of options, which were circulated at the weekend, in a bid to avoid resignations by ministers determined to support a backbench bid to take a "no deal" Brexit off the table this week, according to the Telegraph.
Read more at: UK PM May considers plan to delay Brexit by two months: The Telegraph
The British government officials have drawn up a series of options, which were circulated at the weekend, in a bid to avoid resignations by ministers determined to support a backbench bid to take a "no deal" Brexit off the table this week, according to the Telegraph.
Those options include making a formal request to Brussels to delay Brexit if May cannot secure a deal by March 12, the newspaper reported, without citing sources.
Read more at: UK PM May considers plan to delay Brexit by two months: The Telegraph
Sunday, January 27, 2019
Britain- Brexit: For the poor, it’s not Europe that’s the problem. It’s austerity - by William Keegan
As the Brexit
farce proceeds, it is worth remembering that before David Cameron made
his catastrophic error of calling a referendum, the EU was way down the
list of British people’s concerns in almost every opinion poll. Indeed,
not even in the first 11.
The central point is that Brexit became the focus for all manner of discontents, many of them understandable. But leaving the EU would indubitably not be the answer to them, and would be guaranteed not to make the discontents into “glorious summer”.
Indeed, it would exacerbate the sources of this discontent. Why? Surely it is becoming increasingly obvious that growing swaths of British industry – much of it foreign-owned by conglomerates that enjoy the advantages of the single market – are cutting back their investment plans and in many cases planning to relocate to mainland Europe. The prospect of the diminution of the economic base of the country has dire implications not only for employment and living standards, but also for the tax base on which living standards depend.
We have spent 45 years becoming an integral region of Europe, creating an economic omelette that no one in their right mind would try to unscramble. Unfortunately there are a lot of not-so-right minds about, some of them in the cabinet, and we have the misfortune to have a prime minister who transmits but does not listen, and is fixated on a treacherous mission.
Read more: For the poor, it’s not Europe that’s the problem. It’s austerity | Business | The Guardian
The central point is that Brexit became the focus for all manner of discontents, many of them understandable. But leaving the EU would indubitably not be the answer to them, and would be guaranteed not to make the discontents into “glorious summer”.
Indeed, it would exacerbate the sources of this discontent. Why? Surely it is becoming increasingly obvious that growing swaths of British industry – much of it foreign-owned by conglomerates that enjoy the advantages of the single market – are cutting back their investment plans and in many cases planning to relocate to mainland Europe. The prospect of the diminution of the economic base of the country has dire implications not only for employment and living standards, but also for the tax base on which living standards depend.
We have spent 45 years becoming an integral region of Europe, creating an economic omelette that no one in their right mind would try to unscramble. Unfortunately there are a lot of not-so-right minds about, some of them in the cabinet, and we have the misfortune to have a prime minister who transmits but does not listen, and is fixated on a treacherous mission.
Read more: For the poor, it’s not Europe that’s the problem. It’s austerity | Business | The Guardian
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
Britain and the Brexit Impasse: A national government or “no deal” - by Brendan Donelly
In a recent article for the New York Times, the distinguished
historian of the Conservative Party, Professor Tim Bale, argued that the
“will to power” of the Conservative Party would enable it in the long
term to reconstruct its inner cohesion, currently compromised by the
Brexit debate. Professor Bale’s argument is controversial but, even if
accurate from a historical perspective, it is highly unlikely to be
reflected in the functioning of the Party over the crucial next three
months. Last Wednesday’s ballot of Conservative MPs was at best a
Pyrrhic victory for the Prime Minister. The 117 votes recorded against
her probably if anything understated the degree of opposition to her
proposed texts for the Withdrawal Agreement from the EU and its
accompanying Political Declaration. It is clear she cannot possibly rely
on her Parliamentary Party to steer these proposals through the House
of Commons against the opposition of the Labour Party and others.
But there is no conceivable majority among Conservative MPs for any other course of action either. A divided and dysfunctional Conservative Party is generating a divided and dysfunctional Conservative government. There is no reason at all to believe that this division can be overcome by any sudden outbreak of unity before 29 March 2019. The true lesson of the past tumultuous week in British politics is that no Conservative government is capable of adopting, much less implementing, a coherent alternative position to that of the United Kingdom’s leaving the EU by automatic operation of Article 50 on 29 March 2019. If in three months there is still a Conservative government, then “crashing out” of the EU without a negotiated withdrawal will have become inevitable. That important minority in the Conservative Parliamentary party favourable to this outcome need only persevere in their current obstructionist tactics to gain their goal through the asymmetric workings of Article 50. Under Article 50 “no deal” emphatically means “no deal.”
There has been much talk in recent days of Parliament’s “taking back control of Brexit.” Amber Rudd has specified cross-party discussions to explore the possibility of a “soft Brexit” involving British membership of the EEA. This particular suggestion seems to rest on a number of questionable assumptions. The issue of British membership of the EEA is not one that in any circumstances can be resolved between now and 29 March 2019. If the EEA option is one the UK wishes to pursue after Brexit, it will need to be painstakingly negotiated with the EU during the “transition period.” The most that the EU might be willing to accept in this connection over the next three months would be changes to the wording of the non-binding Political Declaration, pointing towards future British membership of the EEA. It is more than doubtful however whether such marginal changes would be sufficient to guarantee or even make more likely a Parliamentary majority for the Prime Minister’s “deal.” Some Labour MPs either favour or could accept an EEA-like arrangement, but the majority do not, including Jeremy Corbyn and Sir Keir Starmer, both of whom for different reasons would have difficulties in accepting the Freedom of Movement at the heart of the EEA. Most importantly, if the EU were to be persuaded at this late stage to make changes to the Political Declaration, it could only be at the pressing and well-grounded request of the sitting British government. No present or future present Conservative government could ever accept favourable references in the Political Declaration to the EEA and Freedom of Movement. Most pressure on the government from the Conservative Party during the Brexit negotiations has come from precisely the opposite direction, seeking to reduce rather than maintain ties with the EU after Brexit. The EEA can provide no solution to the Conservative government’s present impasse.
Note EU-Digest: Re: Brexit: Britain and Britain's political establishment seem to be "up the creek without a paddle", and the so-called Brexiteers are not to be heard from or seen. A wise lesson for European citizens not to vote for Populist, Nationalist or Ultra Right parties in local or the upcoming May 2019 EU parliamentary elections. It's all empty rhetoric what these parties are producing. Just look at Britain (Brexit) and the USA (Donald Trump) to underscore that point.
Read more at: Brexit: A national government or “no deal” | The Federal Trust
But there is no conceivable majority among Conservative MPs for any other course of action either. A divided and dysfunctional Conservative Party is generating a divided and dysfunctional Conservative government. There is no reason at all to believe that this division can be overcome by any sudden outbreak of unity before 29 March 2019. The true lesson of the past tumultuous week in British politics is that no Conservative government is capable of adopting, much less implementing, a coherent alternative position to that of the United Kingdom’s leaving the EU by automatic operation of Article 50 on 29 March 2019. If in three months there is still a Conservative government, then “crashing out” of the EU without a negotiated withdrawal will have become inevitable. That important minority in the Conservative Parliamentary party favourable to this outcome need only persevere in their current obstructionist tactics to gain their goal through the asymmetric workings of Article 50. Under Article 50 “no deal” emphatically means “no deal.”
There has been much talk in recent days of Parliament’s “taking back control of Brexit.” Amber Rudd has specified cross-party discussions to explore the possibility of a “soft Brexit” involving British membership of the EEA. This particular suggestion seems to rest on a number of questionable assumptions. The issue of British membership of the EEA is not one that in any circumstances can be resolved between now and 29 March 2019. If the EEA option is one the UK wishes to pursue after Brexit, it will need to be painstakingly negotiated with the EU during the “transition period.” The most that the EU might be willing to accept in this connection over the next three months would be changes to the wording of the non-binding Political Declaration, pointing towards future British membership of the EEA. It is more than doubtful however whether such marginal changes would be sufficient to guarantee or even make more likely a Parliamentary majority for the Prime Minister’s “deal.” Some Labour MPs either favour or could accept an EEA-like arrangement, but the majority do not, including Jeremy Corbyn and Sir Keir Starmer, both of whom for different reasons would have difficulties in accepting the Freedom of Movement at the heart of the EEA. Most importantly, if the EU were to be persuaded at this late stage to make changes to the Political Declaration, it could only be at the pressing and well-grounded request of the sitting British government. No present or future present Conservative government could ever accept favourable references in the Political Declaration to the EEA and Freedom of Movement. Most pressure on the government from the Conservative Party during the Brexit negotiations has come from precisely the opposite direction, seeking to reduce rather than maintain ties with the EU after Brexit. The EEA can provide no solution to the Conservative government’s present impasse.
Note EU-Digest: Re: Brexit: Britain and Britain's political establishment seem to be "up the creek without a paddle", and the so-called Brexiteers are not to be heard from or seen. A wise lesson for European citizens not to vote for Populist, Nationalist or Ultra Right parties in local or the upcoming May 2019 EU parliamentary elections. It's all empty rhetoric what these parties are producing. Just look at Britain (Brexit) and the USA (Donald Trump) to underscore that point.
Read more at: Brexit: A national government or “no deal” | The Federal Trust
Britain, British Conservative party, EU, Impasse, Nationalists, Populists, Theresa May, Ultra Right
In a recent article for the New York Times, the distinguished
historian of the Conservative Party, Professor Tim Bale, argued that the
“will to power” of the Conservative Party would enable it in the long
term to reconstruct its inner cohesion, currently compromised by the
Brexit debate. Professor Bale’s argument is controversial but, even if
accurate from a historical perspective, it is highly unlikely to be
reflected in the functioning of the Party over the crucial next three
months. Last Wednesday’s ballot of Conservative MPs was at best a
Pyrrhic victory for the Prime Minister. The 117 votes recorded against
her probably if anything understated the degree of opposition to her
proposed texts for the Withdrawal Agreement from the EU and its
accompanying Political Declaration. It is clear she cannot possibly rely
on her Parliamentary Party to steer these proposals through the House
of Commons against the opposition of the Labour Party and others.
But there is no conceivable majority among Conservative MPs for any other course of action either. A divided and dysfunctional Conservative Party is generating a divided and dysfunctional Conservative government. There is no reason at all to believe that this division can be overcome by any sudden outbreak of unity before 29 March 2019. The true lesson of the past tumultuous week in British politics is that no Conservative government is capable of adopting, much less implementing, a coherent alternative position to that of the United Kingdom’s leaving the EU by automatic operation of Article 50 on 29 March 2019. If in three months there is still a Conservative government, then “crashing out” of the EU without a negotiated withdrawal will have become inevitable. That important minority in the Conservative Parliamentary party favourable to this outcome need only persevere in their current obstructionist tactics to gain their goal through the asymmetric workings of Article 50. Under Article 50 “no deal” emphatically means “no deal.”
There has been much talk in recent days of Parliament’s “taking back control of Brexit.” Amber Rudd has specified cross-party discussions to explore the possibility of a “soft Brexit” involving British membership of the EEA. This particular suggestion seems to rest on a number of questionable assumptions. The issue of British membership of the EEA is not one that in any circumstances can be resolved between now and 29 March 2019. If the EEA option is one the UK wishes to pursue after Brexit, it will need to be painstakingly negotiated with the EU during the “transition period.” The most that the EU might be willing to accept in this connection over the next three months would be changes to the wording of the non-binding Political Declaration, pointing towards future British membership of the EEA. It is more than doubtful however whether such marginal changes would be sufficient to guarantee or even make more likely a Parliamentary majority for the Prime Minister’s “deal.” Some Labour MPs either favour or could accept an EEA-like arrangement, but the majority do not, including Jeremy Corbyn and Sir Keir Starmer, both of whom for different reasons would have difficulties in accepting the Freedom of Movement at the heart of the EEA. Most importantly, if the EU were to be persuaded at this late stage to make changes to the Political Declaration, it could only be at the pressing and well-grounded request of the sitting British government. No present or future present Conservative government could ever accept favourable references in the Political Declaration to the EEA and Freedom of Movement. Most pressure on the government from the Conservative Party during the Brexit negotiations has come from precisely the opposite direction, seeking to reduce rather than maintain ties with the EU after Brexit. The EEA can provide no solution to the Conservative government’s present impasse.
Note EU-Digest: Re: Brexit: Britain and Britain's political establishment seem to be "up the creek without a paddle", and the so-called Brexiteers are not to be heard from or seen. A wise lesson for European citizens not to vote for Populist, Nationalist or Ultra Right parties in local or the upcoming May 2019 EU parliamentary elections. It's all empty rhetoric what these parties are producing. Just look at Britain (Brexit) and the USA (Donald Trump) to underscore that point.
Read more at: Brexit: A national government or “no deal” | The Federal Trust
But there is no conceivable majority among Conservative MPs for any other course of action either. A divided and dysfunctional Conservative Party is generating a divided and dysfunctional Conservative government. There is no reason at all to believe that this division can be overcome by any sudden outbreak of unity before 29 March 2019. The true lesson of the past tumultuous week in British politics is that no Conservative government is capable of adopting, much less implementing, a coherent alternative position to that of the United Kingdom’s leaving the EU by automatic operation of Article 50 on 29 March 2019. If in three months there is still a Conservative government, then “crashing out” of the EU without a negotiated withdrawal will have become inevitable. That important minority in the Conservative Parliamentary party favourable to this outcome need only persevere in their current obstructionist tactics to gain their goal through the asymmetric workings of Article 50. Under Article 50 “no deal” emphatically means “no deal.”
There has been much talk in recent days of Parliament’s “taking back control of Brexit.” Amber Rudd has specified cross-party discussions to explore the possibility of a “soft Brexit” involving British membership of the EEA. This particular suggestion seems to rest on a number of questionable assumptions. The issue of British membership of the EEA is not one that in any circumstances can be resolved between now and 29 March 2019. If the EEA option is one the UK wishes to pursue after Brexit, it will need to be painstakingly negotiated with the EU during the “transition period.” The most that the EU might be willing to accept in this connection over the next three months would be changes to the wording of the non-binding Political Declaration, pointing towards future British membership of the EEA. It is more than doubtful however whether such marginal changes would be sufficient to guarantee or even make more likely a Parliamentary majority for the Prime Minister’s “deal.” Some Labour MPs either favour or could accept an EEA-like arrangement, but the majority do not, including Jeremy Corbyn and Sir Keir Starmer, both of whom for different reasons would have difficulties in accepting the Freedom of Movement at the heart of the EEA. Most importantly, if the EU were to be persuaded at this late stage to make changes to the Political Declaration, it could only be at the pressing and well-grounded request of the sitting British government. No present or future present Conservative government could ever accept favourable references in the Political Declaration to the EEA and Freedom of Movement. Most pressure on the government from the Conservative Party during the Brexit negotiations has come from precisely the opposite direction, seeking to reduce rather than maintain ties with the EU after Brexit. The EEA can provide no solution to the Conservative government’s present impasse.
Note EU-Digest: Re: Brexit: Britain and Britain's political establishment seem to be "up the creek without a paddle", and the so-called Brexiteers are not to be heard from or seen. A wise lesson for European citizens not to vote for Populist, Nationalist or Ultra Right parties in local or the upcoming May 2019 EU parliamentary elections. It's all empty rhetoric what these parties are producing. Just look at Britain (Brexit) and the USA (Donald Trump) to underscore that point.
Read more at: Brexit: A national government or “no deal” | The Federal Trust
Monday, December 17, 2018
Britain - Brexit: May sets January date for parliamentary Brexit vote
Theresa May sets January date for MPs' Brexit vote -
Read more at:
Thursday, December 13, 2018
EU Summit: BREXIT EU LEADERS AGREE- Irish backstop should be temporary
EU summit: EU leaders agreed Irish backstop should only be temporary
Read more:
Thursday, November 29, 2018
Britain - Brexit: Extending article 50 would invalidate Brexit deal says May
Extending article 50 would invalidate Brexit deal, says May
Read full report at:
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
Britain - Brexit is a bad idea whichever way you look at it, economically speaking
Under any scenario, the UK’s exit from the
European Union will leave the country worse off. Free trade deal or not.
Cuts to migration or not. Trade barriers or not. Every way you look at
it, Brexit will make the the economy smaller compared with remaining in
the bloc. That’s the assessment of both the UK Treasury and the Bank of
England in separate assessments released today.
As
British prime minister Theresa May tries to get the public and her
parliamentary colleagues behind her plan for Brexit, these assessments
show that there is a stark and unavoidable economic cost to the UK’s
divorce from its biggest trading partner.
On
Sunday (Nov. 25), the UK and EU signed off on a 900-plus page
withdrawal agreement and a political declaration on future ties after
Brexit. May said this deal “delivers on the vote”
by ending the free movement of people between the UK and EU, slashing
payments to Brussels, and mostly taking the UK out from under
jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. These commitments also
mean the UK will be out of the EU’s single market and customs union.
The
government is banking on the supposed political benefits of the deal
outweighing the economic costs.
May’s deal
is now being scrutinized before the British parliament votes on it on
Dec. 11. Both the Treasury and Bank of England are keen to stress their
reports are not economic forecasts, but possible scenarios based on
changes to trade and migration, all else being equal, after Brexit
becomes official in March next year. The results aren’t pretty.
Read more: Brexit is a bad idea whichever way you look at it, economically speaking — Quartz
Sunday, November 25, 2018
Brexit: UK, EU leaders finalise divorce at Brexit summit in Brussels
European Union leaders on Sunday approved a historic Brexit deal,
handing the baton to British Prime Minister Theresa May who must now
convince her sceptical party and country to support it.
Read more: UK, EU leaders finalise divorce at Brexit summit in Brussels - France 24
Read more: UK, EU leaders finalise divorce at Brexit summit in Brussels - France 24
Monday, September 3, 2018
Britain - Brexit: Theresa May should start reading the Tea Leaves as 2.6 million Leave voters have abandoned support for Brexit since referendum, major new study finds - by Benjamin Kentish
 |
| The Brexit disaster |
If the huge number of Britons who have changed their mind had voted to stay in the EU in 2016, the referendum would have delivered a clear Remain verdict.
In a key finding that will particularly intensify pressure on Jeremy Corbyn to take a tougher stance against Brexit, the study found the overwhelming majority of those changing minds are Labour voters in seats the party currently holds.
It comes as Conservative divisions over Brexit deepened, with Theresa May attempting to slap down Boris Johnson after he wrote another article attacking her approach.
The Independent has launched its own campaign for a Final Say referendum, with almost three quarters of a million people having signed our petition demanding one so far.
Read more: 2.6 million Leave voters have abandoned support for Brexit since referendum, major new study finds | The Independent
Tuesday, July 17, 2018
Britain - Brexit: Stuck between EU and US: Britain's Brexit dilemma
US President Donald Trump's unique brand of disruptive diplomacy
appears to have shattered the UK government's claim that Britain can
have it all when it comes to trade once it exits the European Union.
Prime Minister Theresa May probably expected a more helpful stance as she welcomed Trump to Britain this week, given that the populist leader has been outspoken in his support for Brexit.
Instead, Trump scorched her policy towards the EU divorce in an interview with The Sun newspaper that shocked Britain's political establishment.
May had ignored his own advice on how best to confront Brussels, he said, while praising her departed foreign secretary.
The colourful Boris Johnson quit rather than take part in turning Britain into a "colony", after May's blueprint for Brexit was signed off by her cabinet. Johnson, one of the most prominent Brexit campaigners ahead of Britain's June 2016 referendum, had said the country could "have our cake and eat it" by retaining close ties to the EU while also forging ahead with new trade deals with the rest of the world, including the United States.
May's blueprint, fleshed out in a government white paper this week, argued that it was possible through a deal with the EU that would preclude the return of a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK.
Trump, however, torpedoed such thinking in his interview. He said May's plans to bind Britain's economy closely to its European partners after Brexit would "probably kill" its hopes of a US trade deal.
Both leaders tried to brush aside Trump's incendiary language at a news conference yesterday, insisting they were determined to pursue a post-Brexit pact.
May stressed London could stay on friendly trade terms with both Brussels and Washington. "It's not either or," she said at the press conference.
The allure of a free-trade agreement (FTA) with Washington has propped up much rhetoric by Brexiteers and kept May determined to go ahead with Trump's visit despite opposition from thousands of protesters who denounced the trip.
That was why the government's white paper was "veiled by strategic ambiguity on trade in goods", said Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, director of the European Centre for International Political Economy in Brussels.
"The problem is that FTAs don't actually go that far," he added. "There is a great misconception in the Brexit debate about what an FTA can do. Many arguments are hyperbole or even outright false."
The pound slid 0.6 percent against the dollar on Trump's interview as the rhetoric of Brexit freedom ran into the reality of Britain's economic relationships.
"The UK can't afford to alienate either the US or the EU, its two largest foreign trade partners, and will not be able to choose an 'either-or' solution," commented Fiona Cincotta, a senior market analyst at City Index in London.
But even if Britain can extricate itself from the dense web of regulations and tariffs resulting from its decades of EU membership, a US-UK trade deal would be easier said than done.
Trump has begun a trade war already with the EU, China and others. There is nothing to suggest the hard-nosed deal maker would go easier on Britain, and he may press hard for lower tariffs and easier access for US industry to Europe's second-biggest economy.
Chlorinated US chicken has already become totemic of future rows as campaigners line up against the prospect of Britain relaxing its food-safety standards under any US deal.
Defenders of Britain's cherished National Health Service have mobilised against what they see as a US plot to dismantle the NHS by opening it up to competition from US healthcare providers, and to allow higher prices for US drugs.
Free-trade deals that threaten to undermine institutions like the NHS have drawn mass protests elsewhere. A long-negotiated EU-Canada trade pact is staring at political defeat in Europe. A separate US-EU agreement is on ice. So May faces an unpalatable choice.
The United States may be Britain's single biggest national trading partner, but the EU as a whole is far bigger.
"At first glance, Trump's disruptive approach may make some sense from a narrow 'America first' perspective. In any bilateral negotiation with any other country in the world, the US would be the stronger party," Berenberg Economics said in a report.
But it added: "Trump may be his own worst enemy. By taking on many countries at the same time with behaviour considered unacceptable beyond his own base of fans, Trump may bring others closer together rather than dividing them."
Indeed, British lawmakers from both sides of the aisle seized on Trump's remarks to warn May against placing too much faith in the volatile president as Britain prepares to exit the EU next March.
"If signing up to the #Trump world view is the price of a deal, it's not worth paying," tweeted Sarah Woollaston, an MP from May's own Conservative party.
Prime Minister Theresa May probably expected a more helpful stance as she welcomed Trump to Britain this week, given that the populist leader has been outspoken in his support for Brexit.
Instead, Trump scorched her policy towards the EU divorce in an interview with The Sun newspaper that shocked Britain's political establishment.
May had ignored his own advice on how best to confront Brussels, he said, while praising her departed foreign secretary.
The colourful Boris Johnson quit rather than take part in turning Britain into a "colony", after May's blueprint for Brexit was signed off by her cabinet. Johnson, one of the most prominent Brexit campaigners ahead of Britain's June 2016 referendum, had said the country could "have our cake and eat it" by retaining close ties to the EU while also forging ahead with new trade deals with the rest of the world, including the United States.
May's blueprint, fleshed out in a government white paper this week, argued that it was possible through a deal with the EU that would preclude the return of a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK.
Trump, however, torpedoed such thinking in his interview. He said May's plans to bind Britain's economy closely to its European partners after Brexit would "probably kill" its hopes of a US trade deal.
Both leaders tried to brush aside Trump's incendiary language at a news conference yesterday, insisting they were determined to pursue a post-Brexit pact.
May stressed London could stay on friendly trade terms with both Brussels and Washington. "It's not either or," she said at the press conference.
The allure of a free-trade agreement (FTA) with Washington has propped up much rhetoric by Brexiteers and kept May determined to go ahead with Trump's visit despite opposition from thousands of protesters who denounced the trip.
That was why the government's white paper was "veiled by strategic ambiguity on trade in goods", said Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, director of the European Centre for International Political Economy in Brussels.
"The problem is that FTAs don't actually go that far," he added. "There is a great misconception in the Brexit debate about what an FTA can do. Many arguments are hyperbole or even outright false."
The pound slid 0.6 percent against the dollar on Trump's interview as the rhetoric of Brexit freedom ran into the reality of Britain's economic relationships.
"The UK can't afford to alienate either the US or the EU, its two largest foreign trade partners, and will not be able to choose an 'either-or' solution," commented Fiona Cincotta, a senior market analyst at City Index in London.
But even if Britain can extricate itself from the dense web of regulations and tariffs resulting from its decades of EU membership, a US-UK trade deal would be easier said than done.
Trump has begun a trade war already with the EU, China and others. There is nothing to suggest the hard-nosed deal maker would go easier on Britain, and he may press hard for lower tariffs and easier access for US industry to Europe's second-biggest economy.
Chlorinated US chicken has already become totemic of future rows as campaigners line up against the prospect of Britain relaxing its food-safety standards under any US deal.
Defenders of Britain's cherished National Health Service have mobilised against what they see as a US plot to dismantle the NHS by opening it up to competition from US healthcare providers, and to allow higher prices for US drugs.
Free-trade deals that threaten to undermine institutions like the NHS have drawn mass protests elsewhere. A long-negotiated EU-Canada trade pact is staring at political defeat in Europe. A separate US-EU agreement is on ice. So May faces an unpalatable choice.
The United States may be Britain's single biggest national trading partner, but the EU as a whole is far bigger.
"At first glance, Trump's disruptive approach may make some sense from a narrow 'America first' perspective. In any bilateral negotiation with any other country in the world, the US would be the stronger party," Berenberg Economics said in a report.
But it added: "Trump may be his own worst enemy. By taking on many countries at the same time with behaviour considered unacceptable beyond his own base of fans, Trump may bring others closer together rather than dividing them."
Indeed, British lawmakers from both sides of the aisle seized on Trump's remarks to warn May against placing too much faith in the volatile president as Britain prepares to exit the EU next March.
"If signing up to the #Trump world view is the price of a deal, it's not worth paying," tweeted Sarah Woollaston, an MP from May's own Conservative party.
Monday, December 4, 2017
Brexit Britain and EU fail to strike Brexit talks deal
he UK and EU have failed to reach an agreement to move to the next stage of Brexit talks, Theresa May has said.
The prime minister said talks would reconvene "before the end of the week" and she was "confident we will conclude this positively".
The talks are understood to have broken down after the Democratic Unionist Party refused to accept concessions on the Irish border issue.
Downing Street said that was not the only outstanding problem.
Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said a deal had been done, but the UK appeared to change its mind over the Irish border question after pressure from the DUP.
"I am surprised and disappointed that the British government now appears not to be in a position to conclude what was agreed earlier today," he told a press conference in Dublin.T
Read more: Britain and EU fail to strike Brexit talks deal - BBC News
The prime minister said talks would reconvene "before the end of the week" and she was "confident we will conclude this positively".
The talks are understood to have broken down after the Democratic Unionist Party refused to accept concessions on the Irish border issue.
Downing Street said that was not the only outstanding problem.
Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said a deal had been done, but the UK appeared to change its mind over the Irish border question after pressure from the DUP.
"I am surprised and disappointed that the British government now appears not to be in a position to conclude what was agreed earlier today," he told a press conference in Dublin.T
Read more: Britain and EU fail to strike Brexit talks deal - BBC News
Friday, October 20, 2017
Brexit:"Stupidity on steroids":Theresa May urged to prepare for no-deal Brexit by former ministers-by Ashley Cowburn
The British newspaper Independent reports that PM Theresa May is being urged to prepare to walk away from the EU without a deal by former Conservative ministers, insisting the UK should not be “terrified” of ending the negotiations with Brussels.
In a letter to the Prime Minister, four ex-Cabinet ministers, including Lord Lawson, Owen Paterson, John Redwood and Peter Lilley, call on Ms May to “concentrate our resources on resolving administrative issues” ahead of leaving with no deal in March 2019.
Operating on World Trade Organisation rules, they claim, would help Britain “crystallise the economic opportunities” of Brexit, give businesses “absolute certainty” about the future and sever ties with Brussels regulations which “take opportunities off the table”.
The letter, organized by the Leave Means Leave campaign, comes as the Prime Minister went to Brussels in an attempt to appeal directly to the EU heads of government and bypass the stalled negotiating process.
Ms May will hope to engage them “in a discussion” to end the impasse, a senior UK Government official said, ahead of the EU leaders’ own Brexit talks in Britain’s absence.
In the letter to The Daily Telegraph, the senior Eurosceptics add: “No deal on trade is better than a deal which locks the UK into the European regulatory system and takes opportunities off the table.
Speaking about the plea to Ms May, Mr Paterson, the former Environment Secretary, told BBC Radio 4’s Today program that it appeared unlikely a trade deal would be struck with the EU “because they are flatly refusing to talk about it” and that there was a “complete obsession with money” - the so-called divorce bill.
He said that a trade deal with the EU is “the best destination, but what we should not be terrified of is the WTO”.
As European leaders gathered in Brussels, he said: ”We have to face the fact that this summit is not going to discuss any future trade deal. We are ineluctably moving down the road to a WTO arrangement so we had better start preparing for it.
“If they come back - and we very much hope they would - to talk about a free trade deal, that would be a bonus.”
But pro-EU Tory former cabinet minister Nicky Morgan said: “It is absolutely not 'inevitable' that the UK ends up on WTO terms with no Brexit deal - it is what the hard Brexiteers want.”
"A lot of people, corporations, financial institutions and industries, will start packing their bags, if they are not doing so already."
Insure-Digest
In a letter to the Prime Minister, four ex-Cabinet ministers, including Lord Lawson, Owen Paterson, John Redwood and Peter Lilley, call on Ms May to “concentrate our resources on resolving administrative issues” ahead of leaving with no deal in March 2019.
Operating on World Trade Organisation rules, they claim, would help Britain “crystallise the economic opportunities” of Brexit, give businesses “absolute certainty” about the future and sever ties with Brussels regulations which “take opportunities off the table”.
The letter, organized by the Leave Means Leave campaign, comes as the Prime Minister went to Brussels in an attempt to appeal directly to the EU heads of government and bypass the stalled negotiating process.
Ms May will hope to engage them “in a discussion” to end the impasse, a senior UK Government official said, ahead of the EU leaders’ own Brexit talks in Britain’s absence.
In the letter to The Daily Telegraph, the senior Eurosceptics add: “No deal on trade is better than a deal which locks the UK into the European regulatory system and takes opportunities off the table.
Speaking about the plea to Ms May, Mr Paterson, the former Environment Secretary, told BBC Radio 4’s Today program that it appeared unlikely a trade deal would be struck with the EU “because they are flatly refusing to talk about it” and that there was a “complete obsession with money” - the so-called divorce bill.
He said that a trade deal with the EU is “the best destination, but what we should not be terrified of is the WTO”.
As European leaders gathered in Brussels, he said: ”We have to face the fact that this summit is not going to discuss any future trade deal. We are ineluctably moving down the road to a WTO arrangement so we had better start preparing for it.
“If they come back - and we very much hope they would - to talk about a free trade deal, that would be a bonus.”
But pro-EU Tory former cabinet minister Nicky Morgan said: “It is absolutely not 'inevitable' that the UK ends up on WTO terms with no Brexit deal - it is what the hard Brexiteers want.”
"A lot of people, corporations, financial institutions and industries, will start packing their bags, if they are not doing so already."
Insure-Digest
Sunday, August 13, 2017
Brexit: EU should welcome the UK back from Brexit like the prodigal son - by Hugo Dixon
Pro-European Brits should put their heart into stopping Brexit rather
than campaigning for a soft one. Mitigating the disaster of quitting the
EU is a poor consolation prize.
Staying in the EU, on the other hand, is the real jackpot — and, since Theresa May’s disastrous general election, no longer a quixotic goal.
The soft Brexit brigade may gain comfort from the position papers the government will start publishing this week. These are expected to confirm that Mrs May is looking for a transitional deal to bridge the gap between quitting the EU and nailing down a new long-term relationship with our partners.
This shift is certainly welcome. But the government remains committed to leaving the EU’s single market and customs union, so its policy will still damage our economy.
Anyone who campaigns for soft Brexit will be doing the government’s dirty work for it. And, let us be clear, it is dirty work.
The cabinet’s disarray over what sort of Brexit they want is not just down to incompetence. They are trying to solve the impossible puzzle of getting a good Brexit. If the government wants to delay the pain, it will have to continue following the EU’s rules and paying into its budget for that transitional period.
Rather than giving Mrs May a helping hand, pro-Europeans should exploit her problems in order to drive further changes in public opinion. People have lost confidence in the prime minister’s ability to negotiate a good Brexit. Before the June general election, she seemed to walk on water; now she is drowning.
We will also find ourselves marginalised on the world stage and so less able to influence things that really matter to our citizens such as fighting terrorism, combating climate change and preventing the worst side-effects of globalisation.
Read more: EU should welcome the UK back from Brexit like the prodigal son
Staying in the EU, on the other hand, is the real jackpot — and, since Theresa May’s disastrous general election, no longer a quixotic goal.
The soft Brexit brigade may gain comfort from the position papers the government will start publishing this week. These are expected to confirm that Mrs May is looking for a transitional deal to bridge the gap between quitting the EU and nailing down a new long-term relationship with our partners.
This shift is certainly welcome. But the government remains committed to leaving the EU’s single market and customs union, so its policy will still damage our economy.
Anyone who campaigns for soft Brexit will be doing the government’s dirty work for it. And, let us be clear, it is dirty work.
The cabinet’s disarray over what sort of Brexit they want is not just down to incompetence. They are trying to solve the impossible puzzle of getting a good Brexit. If the government wants to delay the pain, it will have to continue following the EU’s rules and paying into its budget for that transitional period.
Rather than giving Mrs May a helping hand, pro-Europeans should exploit her problems in order to drive further changes in public opinion. People have lost confidence in the prime minister’s ability to negotiate a good Brexit. Before the June general election, she seemed to walk on water; now she is drowning.
We will also find ourselves marginalised on the world stage and so less able to influence things that really matter to our citizens such as fighting terrorism, combating climate change and preventing the worst side-effects of globalisation.
Read more: EU should welcome the UK back from Brexit like the prodigal son
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)