Connecteu-vos amb nosaltres

EU

#Brexit - Weyand diu que la declaració política "uneix allò insondable i deixa opcions obertes"

COMPARTIR:

publicat

on

Utilitzem el vostre registre per proporcionar contingut de la manera que heu consentit i per millorar la nostra comprensió de vosaltres. Podeu donar-vos de baixa en qualsevol moment.

Today (29 January) is yet another red letter day for the Palace of Westminster. MPs will discuss a variety of amendments that aim to modify Prime Minister Theresa May’s proposed Plan B presented on 21 January. With less than sixty days to go, the clock is ticking ever louder, escriu Catalina Feore.

May’s Plan B is pretty much Plan A – the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) agreed by the EU-27 and by her cabinet; Plan A was met with a crushing defeat in the House of Commons on 15 January, with MPs voting 432 -202 against it. May said that she will seek further concessions from  Brussels  on the ‘backstop’ arrangement for the Irish border that meet the concerns of her own backbenchers and the DUP (Democratic Unionist Party).

When the Commission Chief Spokesperson Margaritis Schinas was asked about the idea of adding a codicil to the current UK Withdrawal Agreement, with a view to circumventing the current impasse in the UK over the 'backstop' he said that that the Withdrawal Agreement is not open to renegotiation; he added that President Tusk and Juncker's carta conjunta to Prime Minister May was clear on the issue.

At an event in Brussels, the European Policy Centre organized a panel of high-profile speakers, including Sir Ivan Rogers – former UK Ambassador to  the EU and Sabine Weyand, the deputy chief Brexit negotiator (a la foto).

Weyand said that what had been accomplished in the WA was “no mean feat” and that without an orderly exit, the EU would not have the necessary trust to enter into a new relationship with the UK.

anunci

The message was clear – if MPs do not sign up to the current deal it would be unlikely that they could secure a future deal with the EU. If the concessions are not made now, they would have to come later, if the UK wants to enjoy any sort of free trade agreement with the EU-27.

Weyand described the negotiations as intense and difficult. She acknowledged the scale of May’s defeat on 15 January, but said that given the many different reasons offered by MPs it was difficult to see how a positive and stable majority could be established: “We need a majority and we need a stable majority for the WA and the accompanying legislation. The negotiation is in London, it is finished here, it will not be reopened.”

She criticized the UK debate on focusing on issues that can be addressed in the future, through the political declaration observing  that discussions in the UK appeared to be “uninhibited by what is actually in the Withdrawal Agreement.”

Backstop

Weyand emphasized that the backstop agreement was shaped by British negotiators:

“The backstop was shaped by the UK . You only need to look at what we proposed in the beginning of 2018 and what is in the WA. The UK wide customs union was an explicit demand from the UK, it was necessary and sufficient for ratification.”

On what is known as ‘Max Fac’, or maximum facilitation, which suggests that technological solutions be found to ensure a so-called soft border, Weyand said: “We looked at every border on this earth, every border the EU has with a third country - there’s simply no way you can do away with checks and controls. The negotiators have not been able to explain them to us and that’s not their fault, it’s because they don’t exist.”

A future agreement that respected the Prime Minister’s red lines would not be adequate in maintaining a soft border, according to Weyand. She said that it would have to be accompanied with a further agreement and that the EU stands ready to evolve its position if the UK changes its red lines – but it is clear that this discussion would be for the future and that the political declaration was flexible enough to allow this. Defending it, she said: “The political declaration is a work of art, because it bridges the unbridgeable and it leaves choices open.”

Weyand repeatedly defended the backstop in response to questions throughout the three hour meeting:  “On the backstop it is not an Irish issue, it is an EU issue,  Ireland is a co-guarantor of the peace process  and the EU has invested enormously. It is also about the external border of the EU, the EU member states decided that the issues could not be left hanging. We did not want to be confronted with something  where  there would have to be some form of checks,  and we didn’t want Chequers where Ireland would become a bargaining chip. Obligations and commiments apply even in the ‘no  deal’ scenario – so does it for the UK.”

Heading for a default ‘no deal’

Most of the speakers seemed to feel that without decisive choices being made by the British parliament the chances of a disruptive ‘no deal’ Brexit were increasing.

Sir Ivan Rogers said that the debate in the UK “has been bedevilled by fantasies on all sides” and that there is a time lag effect in the executive and the legislature. This he said was shown in the level of understanding between cabinet ministers and MPs in general. Weyand was openly critical of this secretive approach: “You cannot lead a negotiation like that in secrecy. We've seen on the UK side the fact this was handled in a very small circle and there was no information sharing about all the things that were tried in the negotiations is now a big handicap.”

She underlined that this is not how the EU does or could negotiate, she said that from the outset there were constant and thorough briefings.

While nobody wants a ‘no deal’, Weyand made it clear that the EU’s preparations were advanced and that while it would also be damaging for the UK it would be much more damaging for the UK that would also be faced with the need to create regulatory and supervisory structures that currently exist at the EU level. This cannot be achieved easily and regulatory requirements are not unique to the EU.

Comparteix aquest article:

EU Reporter publica articles de diverses fonts externes que expressen una àmplia gamma de punts de vista. Les posicions preses en aquests articles no són necessàriament les d'EU Reporter.

Tendències