Tomorrow, Tuesday 8 September, one of the last phases of negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union will begin to find a trade agreement that should enter into force on January 1, 2021, when the United Kingdom completes its exit from the Union. The negotiations seemed right from the start very difficult and have been made even more complicated by the coronavirus pandemic: but observers and analysts agree that a compromise seems increasingly distant, especially due to the attitude held by the British government in recent days.
The government led by Boris Johnson and supported by the Conservatives said last night that will propose a reform of the internal market that will violate some principles contained in the Withdrawal Agreement, the agreement made with the European negotiators in the autumn of 2019 for the orderly exit from the Union. Today, however, Johnson will give a speech – the contents of which have been anticipated by newspapers close to the Conservatives – in which he will give until October 15 to find a compromise, otherwise the United Kingdom will leave without any commercial agreement, which Johnson should define ” a good result ”, which will allow the country to“ prosper ”(contrary to what they indicate all available estimates).
The government announcement on the unilateral overcoming of the Withdrawal Agreement it was greeted with some amazement by European experts. “By violating a treaty it signed last year, the UK fits into the category of rogue states,” he wrote Brigid Laffan, political scientist who teaches at the European University Institute. The Financial Times holds that the move has also surprised some government officials, who fear that the UK may lose its moral authority to criticize other countries’ violations of international treaties.
However, everyone agrees that the two announcements are part of a conscious strategy by the Johnson government. But nobody knows exactly what they want to achieve.
The problem with Withdrawal Agreement arises from the fact that the compromise found last autumn between European and British negotiators was possible because Johnson had given in on a number of aspects concerning the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. From the beginning of the negotiations the European Union had insisted not to build a new border between the two countries, which was only removed in 1997 with the Good Friday peace accords.
To achieve this, Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK) should have remained aligned with European laws on duties and the movement of goods and services. Theresa May’s government viewed this eventuality as an unacceptable violation of the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom; the Johnson government instead accepted the European requests, and defined “great” the compromise found.
After a year, 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 regarding state subsidies to Northern Irish companies (to prevent them from competing unfairly with Irish companies); the law proposed by Johnson argues that the British government can choose whether or not to notify the European Union of the existence of certain subsidies. The Withdrawal Agreement it also provides that Northern Irish companies must follow some bureaucratic steps to ship their goods to the rest of the British territory: the new law argues that these steps are not necessary.
“At the moment it might just be a question of tactics”, writes Holger Hestermeyer, who teaches International Dispute Resolution at King’s College London: “Not necessarily a good tactic – ‘We won’t stick to agreements since we don’t like them’ is a good argument for not making new ones – but a tactic nonetheless. But what consequences will it have? Giving an answer is not at all easy ».
Some think that Johnson is simply trying to add further pressure on European negotiators with the aim of wresting a compromise in the last few days available: putting aside what would happen to the UK, the absence of a deal would heavily harm the countries that have major commercial relations with British companies, especially Ireland, France and the Netherlands. Irish state television yesterday he did know that the British government has been asking the Irish government for days to show some flexibility on Withdrawal Agreement: according to some, it is a sign that he is trying in every way to find a compromise.
Permanently leaving the European Union without a trade agreement would be disastrous for the British economy: overnight heavy duties would be imposed on British products that would significantly increase their final price, making them much less competitive. A car made in the UK, for example, it might cost an average of three thousand euros more. Given that the UK exports many of its goods to EU countries – we are talking about 46 percent of total exports – the consequences would be potentially catastrophic for entire sectors of the UK economy.
For all these reasons, many argue that Johnson will do everything to find some kind of agreement with the European negotiators, with whom the distance remains very wide on different themes including the rights of European fishermen to access British waters, measures to prevent British companies from competing unfairly with European ones 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 United Kingdom will leave the Union without any kind of agreement, placing the blame on the claims of European negotiators. “Regarding the British government’s approach to Brexit, ideology is prevailing over pragmatism,” a European diplomat explained. Politico. In short, the British government could decide to raise political capital by fulfilling the promise to leave the European Union, at any price, rather than being trapped for years in a sort of limbo unwelcome to the conservative electorate.
This morning is the Times both the Telegraph, the two most institutional newspapers close to the Conservative party, opened with anticipations of Johnson’s speech without questioning his statements or expressing skepticism about the government’s decisions and strategies.
–
–
