Brexit: the EU bullies the UK by violating the agreement, but the media only frame the London reaction foul

10 September 20204 years ago babelfish

Our single correspondent struck again, but this time on Brexit. As usual, they don't read, they don't listen. Or rather, they read and listen – and report – only what is convenient, what seems to corroborate their prepackaged version of events. Everything is exploited in order to distribute one-sided right and wrong, in order to paint the characters they hate in the worst possible way and those they cheer for in the best possible way. In this case, the Johnson government on the one hand, the EU on the other.

Great scandal, therefore, when they learned that the British government was preparing to pass a law that makes changes to some points of the Withdrawal Agreement (WA), the withdrawal agreement from the EU signed only eleven months ago, and in particular to the Protocol on Northern Ireland ( NI Protocol ) which regulates the delicate issue of the Northern Irish border.

Violation of international law! And down insults and derision at Boris Johnson's address.

Indeed, the move is questionable and has raised perplexity even in the Tories. But as usual, when it comes to Johnson, Trump or Salvini and others, the story is never told in full.

In fact, this is not a bolt from the blue, but an ongoing negotiation process in which, as we shall see, it is the EU in the first place that is in flagrant and continued violation of the WA, for which the Johnson government initiative could be framed as self defense.

But let's go in order. Yesterday came the statements of the president of the European Commission, who said she was “very worried about the intentions announced by the British government to break the WA. This would violate international law and undermine trust ”.

Downing Street indirectly responded that WA contains "ambiguity" and lacks clarity in "key areas".

And he recalled that it was signed "on the assumption that subsequent agreements to clarify these aspects could be reached". For example, as is well known, a free trade agreement, on which the stalemate is total – and we will see who is responsible.

Few know, in fact – it is one of the things that the sole correspondent has been careful not to tell you – that the way in which the measures envisaged by the WA, and in particular by the NI Protocol , are implemented on the ground is still the subject of negotiations between British officials. and the EU, in a joint commission.

But if they fail to reach an agreement by the end of the transition period, then by December 31, 2020, and in the meantime there is no free trade agreement, then the changes that London wants to introduce with the controversial Internal are necessary. Market Bill .

Downing Street nevertheless accepted the idea of an extraordinary summit with the European Commission, to discuss the proposed changes, to be held as soon as possible.

But what changes are we talking about? The new law defines some rules for the operation of the British internal market after the end of the transition period, therefore from January. In particular, it provides:

no new controls on goods from Northern Ireland to the rest of Great Britain;
to the ministers the power to modify or disapply the rules relating to the movement of goods which will come into force on 1 January if the UK and the EU fail to find an alternative agreement through a trade agreement;
the power to override previously agreed obligations on state aid to companies operating in or exporting to Northern Ireland.

All this, even if in contrast with the provisions of the WA, explicitly establishes the law, even if "in a very specific and limited way", as specified to the Municipalities by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Brandon Lewis. Hence the apparently unfounded accusation of violation of an international treaty.

It must be said – and even this the sole correspondent has kept quiet from you – that these provisions will only come into force in the event of the failure of the negotiations and the United Kingdom's exit from the EU without a free trade agreement, therefore in terms of the WTO, as confirmed to the Municipalities by Secretary Lewis: “These are provisions that will be in the Bill to take effect if other things don't come through” . Because in this case, relations with Brussels could deteriorate further and any government would try to protect the country's integrity in the face of an agreement that instead threatens it.

The problem, in fact, is that to avoid the creation of a "hard" border between Ireland and Northern Ireland with Brexit, contradicting the 1997 Good Friday Agreement, the NI Protocol actually provides for a customs barrier in the Sea of Ireland, i.e. between Northern Ireland and the rest of the country, and depending on its interpretation a real border, and this clearly undermines the integrity and sovereignty of the United Kingdom, allowing the EU an interference in its governance that no other country sovereign would accept. Speaking yesterday at Question Time , Prime Minister Johnson defended himself from criticism:

“My job is to uphold the integrity of the UK, but also to protect the Northern Ireland peace process and the Good Friday Agreement. And to do that, we need a legal safety net to protect our country from extreme or irrational interpretations of the Protocol, which could lead to a border in the Irish Sea, in a way that I believe would be detrimental to the interests of the Agreement of Good Friday and prejudicial to the interests of peace in our country. And this must be our priority ”.

It will be said: but Johnson did not know these things when he signed the WA and accepted the new NI Protocol , presented at home as a success? "Liar! Scoundrel! ”, Shout the EU cheerleaders . What has changed in eleven months to push London to hypothesize the violation of an international treaty? Answer: very much.

Of course Johnson knew these things, but he also knew that it had to be a temporary concession, a "backstop" , a safety net to avoid the creation of a "hard" border between the two Irish in the case which had not reached, at the end of the transition period, a free trade agreement and a soft way to regulate the border.

Indeed, it should be emphasized that the Brexit issue of the Northern Irish border would simply cease to exist the moment an EU-UK free trade agreement was signed. The backstop would not even have been necessary if the EU had agreed to negotiate the trade agreement along with the withdrawal agreement.

Observes Bepi Pezzulli, director of ItaliaAtlantica and collaborator of MilanoFinanza :

“The Northern Irish Protocol – which kept Ulster in the European Single Market for goods – was stipulated as the background and advance price of a free trade agreement between the UK and the EU. With no-deal prospects now accepted by both sides, the NI Protocol has suddenly become an unacceptable political cost and economic barrier. In the absence of a free trade treaty, the erection of a customs barrier in the Irish Sea no longer has a commercial reason and threatens the UK internal market and the UK's constitutional integrity. At present, it is a clause that grants political influence in the UK to the EU without political or commercial consideration ”.

The British government has accepted the WA, and in particular the backstop on the Northern Irish border, because it is accompanied by the EU's commitment to conclude, and implement, a free trade agreement by 2020. But the deadline is near and what has changed in recent months is that the agreement does not even see the shadow and, indeed, far from negotiating in good faith, Brussels is leveraging the NI Protocol , threatening tariffs and barriers within the UK market, therefore the integrity of the Country – just as we predicted in Atlantico Quotidiano months ago – in order to have London accept conditions, as we shall see, as a vassal state.

This is not a simple incorrectness, but a flagrant and continued violation by the EU of the WA, which in article 184 commits the parties to negotiate on future relations "in good faith and in full compliance with their respective legal systems" .

"The Union and the United Kingdom do their best, in good faith and in full compliance with their respective legal systems , to take the necessary steps to promptly negotiate the agreements governing their future relations as referred to in the Political Declaration of 17 October 2019 and to carry out the relevant procedures for the ratification or conclusion of such agreements in order to ensure their application, as far as possible, starting from the end of the transition period ".

Obviously this has never happened and is not happening, since Brussels tries to take an undue negotiating advantage from the mere existence, and possibility of triggering, of the Northern Irish backstop , which by the explicit will of the parties should have been a last resort in case of no deal, not a blackmail weapon.

Instead, according to a revelation from the Sun , Brussels would even go so far as to threaten to block the export of British food to Northern Ireland and this would have triggered the bomb reaction in London. In a no-deal scenario, in fact, the EU can leverage the entry into force of the backstop , which leaves Brussels the possibility to regulate, up to blocking them, the food goods that transit between Northern Ireland and the rest of the country. And this eventuality, in a context of deteriorated relations, has led Downing Street to provide a "safety net" through domestic legislation.

The Sun learned that London's intention to clarify and modify parts of the WA matured after the "veiled threats" from Michel Barnier's team that the EU would exploit those parts of the agreement in case the UK had not bowed to her requests. Under the terms of the agreement, in fact, the export of "animal products" such as meat, fish, shellfish, eggs and dairy products from the UK mainland to Northern Ireland will be subject to EU supervision. The EU has a list of "third countries" authorized to legally import agricultural products into areas subject to its rules. The inclusion of the UK on the list was assumed to be a foregone conclusion, not the subject of negotiation, but the British negotiators gasped when the Barnier team hinted that the UK could not be included if the talks fail.

Brussels would have every right to exclude London from that list, but it so happens that it would be excluded not only from the EU territories but also from Northern Ireland, which would in fact be annexed to the EU, at least from a commercial point of view, and this is certainly not – taking a piece of the UK hostage – the purpose for which the NI Protocol was conceived.

It will be said: but London cannot expect the EU to conclude a free trade agreement. True, but in WA she is committed to negotiating it and there is another element that proves her bad faith. In fact, what Brussels wants to negotiate is not a free trade agreement, but the submission of the United Kingdom to the rules of the Single Market and to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, which again contradicts article 184 of the WA ( "in full compliance with respective legal systems " ).

Brussels rejects a commercial agreement even standard, light , of the kind it has already concluded with numerous other countries (the so – called Canada-plus has been mentioned) and insists on the "level playing field" , but a " level playing field " such that it exists only in the European Single Market, would it have no precedent among free trade agreements.

In fact, the EU expects London to respect its legislation on state aid, its environmental, labor and health standards, even those that Brussels will decide in the future. And that the European Court of Justice has jurisdiction over the bilateral treaty. In short, as if it were still part of the Union.

Not to mention the fishing. And here, again, article 184 ( "good faith" and "respect for the respective legal systems" ) is contradicted by EU negotiators who recognize London's sovereignty over its sea, but not its right to decide who can fish for it. "With the rules in force, EU boats can fish up to 6 nautical miles from the British coast", writes Pezzulli in MilanoFinanza , but leaving the EU the maritime border will be re-established exactly in the center of the Channel. A big problem for the French, who fish 84 percent of the quota of cod in UK waters, while this is allowed 9th. In short, Brussels claims that the waters are British, but European fish (or rather: French) . Blatant example of bad faith in negotiations.

The UK chief negotiator, David Frost, then proposed that the level playing field be "bilateral", that the EU also adjusts if London adopts more stringent rules, but Barnier insists it must be one-sided.

The EU has free trade agreements with Canada, Japan and South Korea, but obviously none of them foresee EU influence in the governance of these countries. The NI protocol is a matter of British internal politics, to protect the balance reached with the Good Friday Agreement, not a trojan horse to force the UK to remain a vassal state of the EU. Observe our Daniele Meloni:

“The EU seems to be aiming at the dismemberment of the United Kingdom, trying to link Northern Ireland and Scotland to its economy and its political project. Particularly serious is the attempt to put its beak into the Irish question, a wound still open for thousands of British and Irish, just closed by the 1997 Good Friday Accords. But Johnson and the British government have long eaten the leaf and are doing everything – sometimes even in a clumsy way, it must be said – to maintain the territorial integrity and defensive depth of the United Kingdom ”.

Another example of bad faith. In 2018, the then President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, solemnly proclaimed: "From the beginning, the EU offer was not just a Canada-type agreement, but a Canada plus plus plus agreement". Tusk and Barnier repeated this several times, specifying that it would only be for Britain, not the UK. Northern Ireland had to stay out of it. Well, to overcome the impasse, Johnson accepted the NI Protocol , also because there was the prospect of reaching an agreement on the so – called Canada-plus . But the offer disappeared on January 31, as soon as the UK officially left the EU.

And here we introduce another, final, consideration. But what exactly is the EU afraid of in signing a free trade agreement? Are you really worried that the UK could make massive use of Chinese-style state aid in the steel or auto industry? Lowering its environmental standards and working conditions to the levels of countries like Vietnam and Bangladesh? Is it realistic for this to happen in an advanced democracy like the UK?

It seems paradoxical that a country that was a member of the Union until recently is more difficult to obtain what has been granted to European countries such as Norway, Switzerland, or even non-European countries such as Canada and Japan, while presenting, unlike these last two cases, much less negotiation difficulties, as British standards up to a minute before 31 December 2020 are the same as the EU.

No, this is not the point that worries Brussels. There is no desire to make a trade agreement with the United Kingdom because, as we wrote almost two years ago in Atlantico Quotidiano – and the facts seem to show it week after week – the EU fears the “free den for everyone”. That other member states, that European citizens, realize that the dreaded cherry-picking is inevitable and has already been granted to other countries, that ultimately what is in their interest, what is concretely needed for their prosperity and security, is free trade, while the "ever closer union" , the political union, with its superstructures, its complications, fiscal harmonization, its political and economic costs, is not necessary, it is a constructivist utopia that is proving to be an obstacle, to divide rather than unite the peoples of Europe. As Margaret Thatcher had already understood and explained in the Bruges speech in 1988.

The post Brexit: the EU bullies the UK by violating the agreement, but the media only frame the London reaction foul appeared first on Atlantico Quotidiano .

This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL http://www.atlanticoquotidiano.it/quotidiano/brexit-lue-bullizza-il-regno-unito-violando-laccordo-ma-i-media-inquadrano-solo-il-fallo-di-reazione-di-londra/ on Thu, 10 Sep 2020 05:06:00 +0000.