Theresa May, former British Prime Minister and now a Conservative Party MP, Monday harshly criticized the current UK head of government, Boris Johnson, who is part of his own party. In a speech given in the House of Commons, the lower house of the British Parliament, May accused the government of acting “reckless” and “irresponsible” in the ongoing negotiations on Brexit, referring in particular to the possibility that Johnson violates some clauses of the Withdrawal Agreement, that is the agreement made last year with the European Union.
The British government publicly acknowledged a few days ago its willingness to violate part of the agreement: something that would have few precedents in Europe and would be a probable violation of international law, with various consequences in future relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
May is not used to publicly and so harshly attack her successor to the government: for this reason her words were seen as a signal of the intolerance of the more moderate wing of the party towards the line of negotiations on Brexit that Johnson is adopting with the European Union.
The ongoing negotiations concern future trade agreements between the European Union and the United Kingdom, that is, those that will regulate a piece of bilateral relations starting from January 2021, when the United Kingdom will also leave the single market and the customs union (the “political Brexit “, Let’s put it this way, has already happened on January 31 of this year). The two sides had signed an agreement, found after very long and arduous negotiations: the Withdrawal Agreement, which established the general rules of the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union and avoided the feared scenario of the so-called “no deal“, The exit without agreement, considered disastrous by many observers.
– Read also: What’s in the Brexit deal
After years of internal strife, divisions and defections, tensions within the British Conservative Party escalated again in early September, when the Johnson-led government announced a reform of the internal market which, if approved, could violate some principles contained in the Withdrawal Agreement. The problem arises from the fact that the Withdrawal Agreement it had been possible because Johnson had given in on a number of issues concerning the Irish-Northern Ireland border.
From the beginning of the negotiations, the European Union had insisted not to build a border between the two countries, only removed in 1997 with the Good Friday peace agreements, those who had put an end to the violence that had marked the history of Northern Ireland for 30 years, the so-called Troubles. For the European Union, Northern Ireland (which is part of the United Kingdom) should have remained aligned with European laws on duties and the movement of goods and services, to avoid the creation of a rigid border. Theresa May’s then government found this eventuality an unacceptable violation of the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom, as it would have created differences in treatment between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom; the subsequent government, led by Johnson, had instead accepted the European requests, defining “great” the compromise found.
A year later, however, Johnson seems to have changed his mind: with the bill announced in September, the British Prime Minister has called into question the Withdrawal Agreement, saying that he does not want to respect some clauses contained in the agreement.
The Withdrawal Agreement, for example, it 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 provides 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.
The European Union has made it clear that if the UK violates the Withdrawal Agreement there will no longer be the basis for continuing to discuss a trade agreement (on which the two sides are still very far apart on various issues, from state aid to fishing quotas in the British sea).
– Read also: France wants the European Parliament back
It is unclear whether Johnson is proposing these changes out of tactics, thus hoping to achieve something more in the negotiations, or out of conviction, purposely pushing the UK towards a complete exit from the European Union without a trade deal. The problem is that permanently leaving the European Union without an 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 now, Johnson’s moves have had two consequences: further distancing British positions from European ones, and angering several influential members of the Conservative Party, especially those who like May would have concluded a Brexit deal different from the current one. Withdrawal Agreement.
To avoid a total breakup within the party, Johnson last Thursday announced an amendment to its proposed law. The amendment provides that the application of the most controversial part of the law, the one that gives the government the power to violate the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement, must be approved by Parliament, which could block it. Iain Watson, political journalist from BBC, he wrote that Johnson’s proposal may have solved the problem of tensions in the party in the short term, but not those in the long term: especially since the British Parliament would still be called to vote to accept a violation of international law, a scenario that May and other conservatives believe unacceptable.
Johnson did not in fact show the willingness to step back in negotiations with the European Union, nor to reconsider the possibility of violating the Withdrawal Agreement. This line, in addition to pushing the UK towards a Brexit without a trade agreement, could significantly weaken the respectability and authority of the country at the international level, where compliance with agreements is one of the fundamental rules of coexistence between states.
–
