 |
| Theresa May |
By Mirta Balea
The European Union agreed to delay the departure of the United Kingdom, scheduled for the 29th of this month, until May 22, if the British Parliament accepts the pact agreed with Brussels by Prime Minister Theresa May, which is very unlikely. The president of the Chamber, John Bercow, warned that it would not allow a third vote if there are no "substantial changes" in the text.
The head of government is in a precarious political situation after two defeats in the House in which the opposition and figures of her own party have voted against the measures negotiated for two long years, and after having lost in June of the past year the general elections, that forced she to agree with the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland to be able to govern.
This, coupled with Bercow's warnings, called on her Friday to send the deputies a letter stating that she would not present the agreement again if continues to have no support. The document release has coincided with the confirmation of the DUP that will still not vote.
If Westminster rejected the agreement for the third time, the next important date would be April 12. By then, the deputies must have decided how they want to make the exit or if they will request instead a longer postponement. The extension must be justified and the country would be oblige to participate in the elections to the European Parliament between the 23rd and 26th of May.
Up to eleven ministers have been sworn in to force the resignation of the chief executive, according to Reuters. Sounds to replace her, his second, David Lidington, and also Michael Gove, of Environment, and Jeremy Hunt, of Foreign Affairs.
The parliament wanted to take control of the process from the government months ago and even a crisis was created in its bosom with the ministers confronting each other and the resignations of two of the hardliners. The prime minister was able to pass the rubicon by committing to resolve the inclusion of new British demands in the agreement. Brussels is reluctant to change what has already been achieved in the long and arduous negotiations.
Negotiating the Brexit has not been, by far, an easy task. The English, if we are guided by the votes, more than the British, in their heat to leave as outside the EU, forgot to forge an alternative plan. This is the reason that voices are rising in the country to proclaim now the need for a second referendum. The People's Vote platform convened a massive demonstration in the center of London on Saturday and a website has collected four million signatures to return to pronounce on the departure of the EU.
Perhaps repeating the referendum is very complicated and even inadvisable, but some believe that gaining time would be smart and desirable in the face of the uncertainty of the moment and the threat of unpredictable and uncontrollable chaos. May's legislature will soon be over and new elections may become a plebiscite for a new Brexit.
If the agreement is passed in Parliament, before March 29, against all odds, May 22 would be the date for an orderly exit from the country, which would have two months to approve all the associated legislation and would not have to participate in the European elections.
The EU seeks to prevent the British remain full members after the MEPs, which would result in greater reliability in the electoral process for the more than 350 million Europeans supposed to participate. If the third rejection takes place, the 27 would have to meet again, possibly on Thursday of next week, to put the final date of rupture.
Among the most thorny issues in the negotiations between the United Kingdom and Brussels is the backstop, the safeguard reached in the 1988 peace agreements to maintain the borders between the Republic of Ireland, member of the EU, and Northern Ireland, territory within of the United Kingdom, and is also one of the reasons for the DUP not accepting the agreement. This would have to contemplate the permanence of the British in the customs union until reaching the frame of a new commercial relation.
Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, defender of a new referendum, introduced a motion to extend the time provided in Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, in order to reduce the risk of a Brexit without agreement or hard on May 22 - which It is what is glimpsed right now. During the time between the deadline and the final departure on December 31, 2020, the country will maintain access to the single market and the customs union, without participating in decision-making, since it would no longer be a member state.
Article 50 of the EU Treaty was activated for the first time by the United Kingdom on March 29, 2016 and has governed the separation process. The letter leaves a margin of two years to the outgoing country, extendable if there is a mutual agreement. The rules on trade and tariffs of the State would be governed if they were not for those of the World Trade Organization.
European standards do not contemplate a re-entry of outgoing states. The only way out until now was that of Algeria in 1962, when it obtained its independence, and still figured in the treaties until 1992 as if it were still a Department of France. Greenland left in 1985 by referendum, although it still belongs to Denmark, member of the EU.
The United Kingdom has always played in the same league as the EU, but with separate rules. This exceptionality, in a marriage of 40 years, was consolidated with the Brexit and raised doubts about the unifying project as a whole. Faced with the presumable initial threats of a domino effect, the exit process has had a consensus greater than expected among the members, which has not been the case in London, whose parliamentarians are still determined to maintain the privileges, which accumulated for as many decades as no other nation in the area.
The numbers of the vote for the exit reflected that 73% of the young people did it for the stay in the EU, like the main cities, among these, London, in which 60% of that option was registered, and a little more in Scotland, Northern Ireland and North Wales. These votes made up 42% of the No upon departure. It was the rural areas and the over 65s that tipped the scales to reach 58%, a figure adjusted, if possible, but sufficient to make the decision to leave the community of States.
If we reel the vote in political and ideological values, 59% of the conservatives and 90% of the populists - both left and right - voted to leave the EU. Europeanists, divided between Liberal Democrastsl and Laborists, counted 75% and 69%. At that time, everything suggested that there would be no need to invoke the title 50 or wait two years for the exit, but now we see that the British talk about extending the process in an indefinite way.
After the Si could be proven that there was no alternative plan for the exit and this has been built on the march by the prime minister, which is, by the way, the expression that the biggest fan is a convert. Previously advocated a stay in the EU and to be doomed to agree to the departure as head of the Executive, despite not having support, does not tire of repeating that a second referendum is unfeasible and must respect the will of voters.
The EU was established in 1993 through the Treaty of Rome, which included three pre-existing pillars: the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Atomic Energy Community and the European Economic Community, which were joined by foreign policy and judicial and police cooperation. The founders of the integrative project: Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands were weakened economically and politically by the two world wars and in need of consolidating the peace achieved to give trade stability.
It was former Prime Minister David Cameron who gave the green light to the referendum. The ex-Spanish president Felipe González said with crystal clear clarity that the British politician burned down his house and wanted to save the furniture and has been left homeless and without furniture. He will go down in history as the leader who took his country out of the EU, pressing the risk button, despite passing for a Europeanist.
Participatory democracy is fine, as long as it is not confused with a substitute for representative democracy. Cameron left his responsibilities in the solution of the immigration problem, reason for complaint to Brussels, and passed to the population the hot potato in the form of a referendum whether or not they should remain in the EU, thinking first of all that this would pressure their community partners and forgetting that referendums should be exceptional and priced.
It must be said that it was not the first time he made a similar move. The first was with the referendum on independence in Scotland, which won by the hair. He might have thought of a similar result for Brexit, but the shot backfired and the immediate situation was a plunge of sterling to 1985 levels.
The United Kingdom contributed 12 billion pounds a year to European coffers and received much more from Europe. 47% of British exports go to the EU and 58% of their imports come from that region. The investment and commercial ties, if we discount the United States and Canada, move largely towards the region from which the country want to separate.
Germany and France are its most prominent partners in trade, while investments lead Switzerland and Norway. The EU contributes 5% of the British GDP and half of its commercial exchange takes place with two heavyweights: France and Germany, not inclined to accept British whims.
The common denominator among European leaders who have proclaimed the need to leave the EU is that they are not willing to share their wealth for the common good and give preference to their local interests, as if they were tribes, in a world each time more globalized in which the long lights should be on permanently.
The EU is considered an important economic bloc on a world scale and will continue to be so after the departure of its ranks from the second largest economy in the world. In any case, the slap given by the United Kingdom to its partners has made them talk more about redefining, defending and preserving the integrating project to avoid disenchantment over the values built up over decades.
The European Union must remain relevant in a world where other emerging economic forces are emerging in the fight for markets.
The numbers of the vote for the exit reflected that 73% of the young people did it for the stay in the EU, like the main cities, among these, London, in which 60% of that option was registered, and a little more in Scotland, Northern Ireland and North Wales. These votes made up 42% of the No upon departure. It was the rural areas and the over 65s that tipped the scales to reach 58%, a figure adjusted, if possible, but sufficient to make the decision to leave the community of States.
If we reel the vote in political and ideological values, 59% of the conservatives and 90% of the populists - both left and right - voted to leave the EU. Europeanists, divided between Liberal Democrastsl and Laborists, counted 75% and 69%. At that time, everything suggested that there would be no need to invoke the title 50 or wait two years for the exit, but now we see that the British talk about extending the process in an indefinite way.
After the Si could be proven that there was no alternative plan for the exit and this has been built on the march by the prime minister, which is, by the way, the expression that the biggest fan is a convert. Previously advocated a stay in the EU and to be doomed to agree to the departure as head of the Executive, despite not having support, does not tire of repeating that a second referendum is unfeasible and must respect the will of voters.
The EU was established in 1993 through the Treaty of Rome, which included three pre-existing pillars: the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Atomic Energy Community and the European Economic Community, which were joined by foreign policy and judicial and police cooperation. The founders of the integrative project: Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands were weakened economically and politically by the two world wars and in need of consolidating the peace achieved to give trade stability.
It was former Prime Minister David Cameron who gave the green light to the referendum. The ex-Spanish president Felipe González said with crystal clear clarity that the British politician burned down his house and wanted to save the furniture and has been left homeless and without furniture. He will go down in history as the leader who took his country out of the EU, pressing the risk button, despite passing for a Europeanist.
Participatory democracy is fine, as long as it is not confused with a substitute for representative democracy. Cameron left his responsibilities in the solution of the immigration problem, reason for complaint to Brussels, and passed to the population the hot potato in the form of a referendum whether or not they should remain in the EU, thinking first of all that this would pressure their community partners and forgetting that referendums should be exceptional and priced.
It must be said that it was not the first time he made a similar move. The first was with the referendum on independence in Scotland, which won by the hair. He might have thought of a similar result for Brexit, but the shot backfired and the immediate situation was a plunge of sterling to 1985 levels.
The United Kingdom contributed 12 billion pounds a year to European coffers and received much more from Europe. 47% of British exports go to the EU and 58% of their imports come from that region. The investment and commercial ties, if we discount the United States and Canada, move largely towards the region from which the country want to separate.
Germany and France are its most prominent partners in trade, while investments lead Switzerland and Norway. The EU contributes 5% of the British GDP and half of its commercial exchange takes place with two heavyweights: France and Germany, not inclined to accept British whims.
The common denominator among European leaders who have proclaimed the need to leave the EU is that they are not willing to share their wealth for the common good and give preference to their local interests, as if they were tribes, in a world each time more globalized in which the long lights should be on permanently.
The EU is considered an important economic bloc on a world scale and will continue to be so after the departure of its ranks from the second largest economy in the world. In any case, the slap given by the United Kingdom to its partners has made them talk more about redefining, defending and preserving the integrating project to avoid disenchantment over the values built up over decades.
The European Union must remain relevant in a world where other emerging economic forces are emerging in the fight for markets.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario