[ad_1]
It's not that we can think of it, given the announcement this week by the British government of its intention to tear up the EU withdrawal agreement, negotiated with great difficulty, as if it were There was all the time in the world. Far too many members of the British political clbad are determined not to lose their heads in the sand.
This was followed on Wednesday by talks between May and the opposition Labor party leadership, to determine if it was possible to find a common ground that would provide stronger support to Parliament. .
With this new clarity, one might think, could come back to Brussels with a "mandate" to change the agreement so that the House of Commons is adopted.
The problem is that the consensus in Brussels is that the UK is running out of chips and looks more and more like an unreliable trading partner.
Therefore, the EU – the only body empowered to make changes to the agreement – may be reasonably unwilling to reopen discussions that, they fear, would lead nowhere. This means that the 29th of March is still Brexit, that time is running out and that, with or without agreement, the UK is moving towards the EU's exit door faster than anyone seems to realize it. .
But a Brexit without agreement is as detrimental to some EU Member States as it is to the UK? So why do not they want to talk? We return here to this whole question of unreliable trading partner.
And despite the amendments voted on Tuesday, the British government has failed to specify the type of agreement that, in his opinion, would be acceptable to a majority of deputies.
The EU does not want to reopen discussions that, in its opinion, would be a waste of time, as it could rather be prepared to deal with the consequences of a non-agreement. Nor does it want to give the United Kingdom an extension of the March 29 deadline for no good reason (for example, to commit to finding an alternative solution that can mobilize support from the majority of MPs). Why would this delay the fall? As one diplomatic source said: "We have enough, no one wants another six months".
Thus, despite all the comments made in the British media that "it would be up to the European Union", one must surely continue to seek demonstrable support for the May agreement, or at least a version of the one -this.
At this late stage, any alternative should be a standard model, similar to that of other EU Member States. (Norway, for example, is not part of the EU, but is a member of its single market and the European Free Trade Area, but is not a member of the EU Customs Union. , so that the "Norwegian model" would not fix the well-known problem of the Irish border).
Recently, the Labor Party told May that in order to support an agreement, the government should engage in a permanent customs union with the EU. It would settle the Irish border, but there is a problem: it would also prevent the United Kingdom from concluding its own trade agreements with other countries, including the United States.
For conservative Brexiteers, it's a huge problem. The ability to trade with countries independent of the EU is one of the main arguments for their departure from the EU. The majority of global growth, they say, is happening outside of the EU. Britain must sell in these markets, it is said, and not the outmoded European Union, unfit for the world, with all its rules, regulations and administrative formalities.
But it has become increasingly clear that the most difficult members of the Brexiteer in his party are so furious with May for what they regard as his "sale" in Brussels, that they do not want to be in the same position. will never accept anything from what she presents to them. Just like the EU, they no longer trust it and consider it totally unreliable (it's funny how the enemies always find a common ground).
So, could she turn to the Labor Party to get her approval? It's politically risky, but it seems possible. She finally had talks with opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, and there is talk of the government paying money to districts represented by Labor MPs in the Brexit voting zones. Corbyn was consistent in saying that the Brexit would happen even if he was prime minister, and he has so far refused to formally support a second referendum.
What does all this mean? In short, it seems increasingly likely that the problem more closely touches the agreement of May – or at least a deal negotiated by the government – and no agreement. This week we learned that support for the House of Commons to stay in the EU is lower than expected: the deputies rejected an amendment asking for an extension of the deadline set for the Brexit if an agreement does not exist. was not concluded quickly.
This does not bode well for another measure blocking Brexit in the House of Commons. And that, in turn, means that Brexit occurs, with or without agreement. The United Kingdom is currently tripping towards a cliff. It is amazing that so few elected officials to represent its citizens can see it.
Source link
