[ad_1]
Here are the main excerpts of the letter of resignation he sent to her and which he posted on Twitter:
"Dear Theresa,
The British voted more than two years ago to leave the European Union on the clear and unequivocal promise that, if they did, they would take back control of their democracy.
They were told that they would be able to manage their own politics of to recover the money currently spent by the EU and, above all, that they would be able to adopt laws independently and in the interest of the citizens of this country.
The Brexit was to be an opportunity and a hope, it should be a chance to do things differently, to be more flexible and dynamic, and to maximize the particular advantages of the UK as a globalized, open and outward-looking economy
This dream is in the process to die, suffocated by an unjustified deficit of trust in us.
We postponed crucial decisions – including preparations for a lack of agreement, as I said in my November letter last – which leads us to a half Brexit in which large parts of the economy will remain prisoners of the European system, while we will have no more grip on this system.
It now seems that the supply of opening of our negotiations badumes that we are not in a position to draft our own laws. Indeed, it seems that we have fallen since the last meeting of Checkers (resort of the Prime Minister, where several government seminars on Brexit took place, Ed) in February. I then expressed my disappointment, as mayor of London who sought to protect heavy-duty cyclists.
We wanted to lower the height of the cabin windows to improve visibility and, even if such devices were already on the market, even though there had been a terrible series of deaths, mostly women, we had been invited to wait for the EU to legislate on the subject.
So at this Checkers seminar we have developed a procedure of divergence from the EU rules. Even now it seems to be out of date and there is no easy way to take initiatives.
Yet Brexit would make sense if it allowed Ministers and Parliament to do things differently to protect the administered. If a country can not pbad a law to save the lives of cyclists, when this proposal is supported by the whole British government, I do not see how it can be called independent.
Conversely, the government Britain has spent decades opposing this or that EU directive because it was too cumbersome or ill-conceived. Today we have come to a ridiculous badertion that we have to accept enormous amounts of EU directives, without being able to change them one bit, because they are essential for our economic health, even though we do not There will be no way to influence their development.
In this respect, we are really moving towards colony status and many will find it difficult to see the economic or political advantage of this particular formula. It is also clear that by abandoning our goods and agri-food legislation (among other things), we will make it much more difficult to enter into free trade agreements. And then there is the additional obstacle of having to plead for an inapplicable customs arrangement, unlike any other.
Even more disturbing is our opening offer. We propose the final status of the United Kingdom even before the other party has submitted a counter-proposal. It's as if our vanguard goes into battle with white flags. In fact, I was afraid, from reading Friday's document, that there are other concessions on immigration, or that we actually end up paying for access to the single market.
On Friday, I recognized that my point of view was too small to prevail and congratulated you for having at least been able to take a government decision on the way forward (…) As I can not, in all conscience, defend these proposals, I unfortunately concluded that I had to leave. "
(with Reuters)
[ad_2]
Source link
