Brexit back in crisis as UK threatens to undercut divorce pact

By Guy Faulconbridge and Elizabeth Piper

 

A woman walks past a Union Jack flag hanging on a house in Westminster in London, Britain, February 1 2020. REUTERS/Simon Dawson/Files

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's tortuous divorce from the European Union veered into fresh crisis on Monday after London threatened to undermine the exit agreement unless free trade terms are agreed by next month.

 

In yet another twist to the four-year saga since Britain voted narrowly to quit the bloc, Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government was reportedly planning new legislation to override parts of the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement it signed in January.

 

That could potentially jeopardise the whole treaty and create frictions in British-ruled Northern Ireland where special arrangements had been made to avoid a hard border with Ireland to the south that could be detrimental to a peace agreement.

 

Sections of the proposed internal market bill are expected to "eliminate the legal force of parts of the withdrawal agreement" in areas including state aid and Northern Ireland customs, the Financial Times newspaper said, citing three people familiar with the plans.

 

EU diplomats were aghast, cautioning that such a step - leaked on the eve of new talks in London - would tarnish Britain's global prestige and heighten chances of a tumultuous final disentangling from the bloc on Dec. 31.

 

The report was neither confirmed nor denied by Britain.

 

A government spokeswoman said it would work to resolve outstanding disagreements about Northern Ireland with the EU but was considering fall back options. "We will always reserve the right to act in the best interests of Northern Ireland and the UK's internal market," she said.

 

"Our top priority is to preserve the huge gains from the peace process and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, as well as protecting Northern Ireland's place in our United Kingdom."

 

Sterling <GBP=D3> fell against the dollar and euro.

 

Britain left the EU on Jan. 31 but talks on a new trade deal before the end of a status-quo transition arrangement in December have snagged on state aid rules and fishing.

 

London has set a deadline of Oct. 15 to strike a deal.

 

"If we can't agree by then, then I do not see that there will be a free trade agreement between us, and we should both accept that and move on," Johnson was to say on Monday, according to his office.

 

WHO WILL BLINK FIRST?

 

European diplomats said Britain was playing a game of Brexit chicken by threatening to collapse the process and challenging Brussels to blink first. Some fear Johnson may view a no-deal exit as useful distraction from the coronavirus crisis.

 

Without a deal, about $900 billion annual trade between Britain and the EU could be thrown into uncertainty, including rules on everything from car parts and medicines to fruit and data.

 

Some Brexit-supporting members of the ruling Conservatives oppose the withdrawal agreement as threatening British independence even if the two sides secure future trade ties.

 

There was surprise and anger on both sides of the Irish border and in Brussels at the reported plan to undermine the withdrawal pact.

 

"I trust the British government to implement the Withdrawal Agreement, an obligation under international law & prerequisite for any future partnership," said Ursula von der Leyen, head of the European Commission.

 

"Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland is essential to protect peace and stability on the island & integrity of the single market," she added on Twitter.

 

Leaders of Northern Ireland's Sinn Fein and SDLP parties, the region's two largest Irish nationalist groups, also criticised the government's reported plan.

 

British Environment Secretary George Eustice said the government was committed to implementing the Withdrawal Agreement but some legal ambiguities needed to be tidied up over the Northern Irish protocol.

 

"We are not moving the goal posts," he told Sky News.

 

EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier acknowledged anxiety but declined to comment on the FT report. "I remain worried ... the negotiations are difficult, because the British want the best of both worlds," he told France Inter radio.

 

If no deal is agreed, Britain would have a trading relationship with the bloc like Australia's, which would be "a good outcome", Johnson was also to say on Monday.

 

Australia is negotiating a free trade deal with the EU to improve its market access, but for now largely trades with the bloc on World Trade Organization terms.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-09-07

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

9 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government was reportedly planning new legislation to override parts of the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement it signed in January.

we can't trust them, always changing their negotiations/agreements but as always they will blame the EU, the old saying comes to mind....... t's not us it's them

11 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

EU diplomats were aghast, cautioning that such a step - leaked on the eve of new talks in London - would tarnish Britain's global prestige and heighten chances of a tumultuous final disentangling from the bloc on Dec. 31.

the little credibility left it's over now.... UK credibility (if any was left)  tarnished forever

Perfidious Albion.

Westminster and in particular Conservative governments simply cannot be trusted.

Just now, Rookiescot said:

Perfidious Albion.

Westminster and in particular Conservative governments simply cannot be trusted.

555 am with you

Send in your new trade representative Tony Abbott. He will fix it just like he did with Australia's trade negotiations.

While he is there give him back his British citizenship so we can strip him of his Aussie rights.

Please, just tell the UK to F off already without a deal and let them reap the benefits of a no deal Brexit and let’s close that chapter! Screw them! 

Meanwhile back at the farm the British economy sank 20.4% and UK funds outflows were 1.2 billion pounds while non UK funds took 1.6 billion pounds inflows on non brexit deal, seems that economists aren't so gung ho as Boris.

13 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Perfidious Albion.

Westminster and in particular Conservative governments simply cannot be trusted.

Someone's learned a new expression, haven't they. That's about the third time today you've said Perfidious Albion. Did you google it after seeing it trending on Twitter?

 

Anyway, if the EU are not going to abide by the terms of the treaty I see no reason why the UK should. The EU has consistently undermined UK sovereignty by demanding a level playing field in which they decide UK laws and regulations, as well as ECJ jurisdiction and free access to fishing waters in return for the trade deal. They have also not acted in good faith by demanding terms for a trade deal that they have never requested before and would never dream of accepting themselves.

 

Respecting UK sovereignty and acting in good faith were both terms of the agreement. So if the EU wishes to ignore certain parts of it, the UK will also. The EU can cry and squeal as much as they like. If the EU didn't want to fight dirty, they shouldn't have taken their gloves off. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

 

Hopefully the UK will stop the remaining payments of the 30 Billion remaining from the divorce deal as well, until a fair, mutually beneficial trade deal that respects UK sovereignty is agreed. 

29 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Someone's learned a new expression, haven't they. That's about the third time today you've said Perfidious Albion. Did you google it after seeing it trending on Twitter?

 

Anyway, if the EU are not going to abide by the terms of the treaty I see no reason why the UK should. The EU has consistently undermined UK sovereignty by demanding a level playing field in which they decide UK laws and regulations, as well as ECJ jurisdiction and free access to fishing waters in return for the trade deal. They have also not acted in good faith by demanding terms for a trade deal that they have never requested before and would never dream of accepting themselves.

 

Respecting UK sovereignty and acting in good faith were both terms of the agreement. So if the EU wishes to ignore certain parts of it, the UK will also. The EU can cry and squeal as much as they like. If the EU didn't want to fight dirty, they shouldn't have taken their gloves off. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

 

Hopefully the UK will stop the remaining payments of the 30 Billion remaining from the divorce deal as well, until a fair, mutually beneficial trade deal that respects UK sovereignty is agreed. 

Nice attempt at misrepresentation of the facts.

 

The news is the UK threatening to not abide by the treaty.

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Nice attempt at misrepresentation of the facts.

 

The news is the UK threatening to not abide by the treaty.

Which facts did I misrepresent? Has the EU not been asking for full access to UK fish/waters, a level playing field (in which the EU make the rules) and ECJ jurisdiction? You think this respects UK sovereignty as per the terms of the agreement? In which other free trade agreements did they request such things?

 

I am sure you are aware of the left wing, pro EU bias in the vast majority of the MSM. The fact they didn't point this out is hardly shocking news now, is it? ????

41 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Someone's learned a new expression, haven't they. That's about the third time today you've said Perfidious Albion. Did you google it after seeing it trending on Twitter?

 

Anyway, if the EU are not going to abide by the terms of the treaty I see no reason why the UK should. The EU has consistently undermined UK sovereignty by demanding a level playing field in which they decide UK laws and regulations, as well as ECJ jurisdiction and free access to fishing waters in return for the trade deal. They have also not acted in good faith by demanding terms for a trade deal that they have never requested before and would never dream of accepting themselves.

 

Respecting UK sovereignty and acting in good faith were both terms of the agreement. So if the EU wishes to ignore certain parts of it, the UK will also. The EU can cry and squeal as much as they like. If the EU didn't want to fight dirty, they shouldn't have taken their gloves off. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

 

Hopefully the UK will stop the remaining payments of the 30 Billion remaining from the divorce deal as well, until a fair, mutually beneficial trade deal that respects UK sovereignty is agreed. 

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's tortuous divorce from the European Union veered into fresh crisis on Monday after London threatened to undermine the exit agreement unless free trade terms are agreed by next month.

 

Clearly states there that its the UK not the EU backsliding on an agreement Johnson signed.

Basically saying if we dont get what we want we will renege on what has already been agreed and run the risk of the Northern Ireland agreement also collapsing.

 

I do not use twitter.  

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Which facts did I misrepresent? Has the EU not been asking for full access to UK fish/waters, a level playing field (in which the EU make the rules) and ECJ jurisdiction? You think this respects UK sovereignty as per the terms of the agreement? In which other free trade agreements did they request such things?

 

I am sure you are aware of the left wing, pro EU bias in the vast majority of the MSM. The fact they didn't point this out is hardly shocking news now, is it? ????

The EU may negotiate whatever it wishes as can the UK.

 

What neither may do is unilaterally ignore the terms of a treaty they are both bound by.

 

Nothing to do with your accusation of ‘left wing Pro EU bias’, which, while entertaining,  ignores the fact that the majority of the UK’s MSM is anything but ‘left wing’.

 

I suggest you read upon ‘International Treaties’ to get an idea of how off target you are.

Oh dear, the EU don't like it when the UK has gained the upper hand, they are running scared and about time. Enough of trying to screw the UK, gone are the Olly Robbins/May days and the EU making snide remarks about the UK, I'm afraid the shoe is on the other foot now and they don't like it up em.????????????

15 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's tortuous divorce from the European Union veered into fresh crisis on Monday after London threatened to undermine the exit agreement unless free trade terms are agreed by next month.

 

Clearly states there that its the UK not the EU backsliding on an agreement Johnson signed.

Basically saying if we dont get what we want we will renege on what has already been agreed and run the risk of the Northern Ireland agreement also collapsing.

 

I do not use twitter.  

Well, if that bastion of unbiased reporting, the mighty, revered "Reuters" says it then it must be correct.

 

Reuters, we bow down to you. No need for further discussion ????.

 

PS. How about addressing the points I made instead of regurgitating the left wing pro EU nonsense that Reuters pumps out every day? 

 

Can you think for yourself?

37 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Nice attempt at misrepresentation of the facts.

 

The news is the UK threatening to not abide by the treaty.

And the reason why they are making that threat? Rather well summed up by "JohnnyF" I thought.

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The EU may negotiate whatever it wishes as can the UK.

 

What neither may do is unilaterally ignore the terms of a treaty they are both bound by.

 

Nothing to do with your accusation of ‘left wing Pro EU bias’, which, while entertaining,  ignores the fact that the majority of the UK’s MSM is anything but ‘left wing’.

 

I suggest you read upon ‘International Treaties’ to get an idea of how off target you are.

You appear to have missed the point again. You really do get confused a lot, I'm surprised you haven't worn out that Emoji by now.

 

I shall repeat, the EU is also ignoring the terms of the treaty by not respecting UK sovereignty.

 

Does insisting on full access to UK waters, insisting the UK abides by the level playing field (the rules of which the EU decides) and the UK agreeing on the European court of Justice for dispute settlement sound like UK sovereignty to you?

 

Not to mention acting in good faith.

 

So I repeat, it is the EU that is ignoring the terms. Maybe you should read up on International Treaties. You might find that BOTH SIDES have to abide by the rules.????

 

The EU started fighting dirty and in return got a massive elbow to the face. Now they are crying to the ref. Pathetic, yet entirely consistent with EU protocol.

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Well, if that bastion of unbiased reporting, the mighty, revered "Reuters" says it then it must be correct.

 

Reuters, we bow down to you. No need for further discussion ????.

 

PS. How about addressing the points I made instead of regurgitating the left wing pro EU nonsense that Reuters pumps out every day? 

 

Can you think for yourself?

What points did you make? Just seemed like a rant blaming the EU for failing to capitulate to the UKs demands.

This is after all the easiest trade deal in history. 

These negotiations are getting better by the day. We can tell that by the amount of wailing from the anti-Brexit press like Reuters. The TVF topics also has so many Euro posters almost in tears, Remainers still moaning, and bystanders trying to chip in with anti-British comments.

Roll on No Deal and UK's full release.

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

You appear to have missed the point again. You really do get confused a lot, I'm surprised you haven't worn out that Emoji by now.

 

I shall repeat, the EU is also ignoring the terms of the treaty by not respecting UK sovereignty.

 

Does insisting on full access to UK waters, insisting the UK abides by the level playing field (the rules of which the EU decides) and the UK agreeing on the European court of Justice for dispute settlement sound like UK sovereignty to you?

 

Not to mention acting in good faith.

 

So I repeat, it is the EU that is ignoring the terms. Maybe you should read up on International Treaties. You might find that BOTH SIDES have to abide by the rules.????

 

The EU started fighting dirty and in return got a massive elbow to the face. Now they are crying to the ref. Pathetic, yet entirely consistent with EU protocol.

It’s a negotiation.

 

The EU has the upper hand, Johnson’s response threaten to ignore a treaty he already signed.

 

Incidentally, all of what you are complaining about was widely discussed as ‘Post Brexit Britain will become a rule taker’.

 

You’ll find it filed under ‘Project Fear’.

I remember EU stance was "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"

 

so at the moment Nothing is agreed 

23 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

What points did you make? Just seemed like a rant blaming the EU for failing to capitulate to the UKs demands.

This is after all the easiest trade deal in history. 

Your comprehension issues are not my concern.

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s a negotiation.

 

The EU has the upper hand, Johnson’s response threaten to ignore a treaty he already signed.

 

Incidentally, all of what you are complaining about was widely discussed as ‘Post Brexit Britain will become a rule taker’.

 

You’ll find it filed under ‘Project Fear’.

You're confused again ????. The "rule taker" part was for the transition period only. After that, we're out. Either on WTO or with an FTA. But there will be no political alignment and we won't be following their rules. Time you accepted it. 

 

Yes it's a negotiation but you cannot negotiate terms that are the polar opposite against the rules set out in the Withdrawal agreement. Capiche? After all, that's what the Europhiles are whinging about now that Johnson has decided to reciprocate the EU's decision to renege on the terms. If the EU won't abide by them, the UK won't either. Fair's fair.

 

The EU got used to bullying the UK under May. Now Johnson and Frost are standing up to them, they start crying about it, like bullies always do when someone stands up to them. The EU are a pathetic bunch trying to protect their failing protectionist racket from the inevitable. History will show that the UK got out in the nick of time.

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

You're confused again ????. The "rule taker" part was for the transition period only. After that, we're out. Either on WTO or with an FTA. But there will be no political alignment and we won't be following their rules. Time you accepted it. 

 

Yes it's a negotiation but you cannot negotiate terms that are the polar opposite against the rules set out in the Withdrawal agreement. Capiche? After all, that's what the Europhiles are whinging about now that Johnson has decided to reciprocate the EU's decision to renege on the terms. If the EU won't abide by them, the UK won't either. Fair's fair.

 

The EU got used to bullying the UK under May. Now Johnson and Frost are standing up to them, they start crying about it, like bullies always do when someone stands up to them. The EU are a pathetic bunch trying to protect their failing protectionist racket from the inevitable. History will show that the UK got out in the nick of time.

You perhaps believe the rest of us can’t retrieve past arguments.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/aa4dd305-83e8-39ed-8f45-1ab31a4a1c01

Due to my age ( an excuse ), and being not very smart ( a fact ), I don't understand why the U.K. is still trying to negotiate, and not smash the door.

A simple/plain explanation would be welcome.

The withdrawal agreement signed by both UK and EU is an internationally binding treaty - it set out the financial terms of the divorce but did not have any content dealing with the future trading relationship such as "level playing field" and UK-wide fishing rights which were left to be decided in the following negotiations on trade and other issues.

Only the access of Northern Ireland fishing fleets access to the Union market were in the agreement - as part of the (revised) Northern Ireland protocol.

It is rumoured that the UK Government is planning now to override parts of the protocol with domestic legislation - which is bad news on two fronts - the integrity of the UK and the UK standing on the status of international treaty obligations.

 

It is well known that there was an explicit bargain between the Cummings/Johnson government and the ERG and spartan factions of the UK conservative party - agreed with the go-between John Baron MP -that in return for their support on the withdrawal agreement vote - which was basically a rehash of the Theresa May deal that they had voted down - that the UK government would pursue a "maximum benefit or no-deal" strategy in the negotiations - i.e. the UK would negotiate full bilateral access for goods and services with no barriers as was under the membership of the EU, while retaining full sovereignty over all matters including fishing rights, state aid, etc. and if this was not accepted then the UK would force the negotiations to collapse and crash out on a no-deal (WTO terms) basis. 

 

Over-riding the NI protocol by national legislation would of course collapse the negotiations leading to the short-term scenario of a no-deal Brexit on Dec 31st 2020, but this will have consequences in the longer term.

 

It is not certain that the EU would agree to an Australia-style agreement once the negotiations have collapsed - or even an Australia-minus agreement on just WTO terms - as there will be increasing pressure then from various national governments within the EU to use or erect trade barriers in dealing with the UK - this could mean access to markets for UK fishing or even higher tariffs than set under WTO terms for sectors such as the automotive sector (France has already suggested this as an outcome).

 

On the UK integrity side crashing out with a no-deal would provide further impetus to the Scottish independence debate,  where already the latest polls are suggesting a 50%-52% majority for independence against 40-42% for remaining, and the SNP have the vast majority of Scottish constituency seats under both Westminster and Scottish Assembly elections, with new Scottish assembly elections in May next year.

 

The Northern Ireland protocol also states that within 4 years of the end of the transition period - i.e. by December 31st 2024, the Northern Ireland people have to vote on the status of their trading relationship with the UK and the EU - basically a referendum on being in the UK.

There is, therefore, a real risk that overriding the protocol could provide the catalyst for both Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK.

 

The effect on international treaties is also not minor - if national legislation were able to override international treaty obligations then this would have far-reaching consequences - for example Scotland could introduce national legislation in the Scottish assembly to override the section 30 approval needed from the Westminster government for any new independence referendum - and would also allow Spain to override the treaty of 1771 and formally cede the control of the Falkland Islands to Argentina.

There are many, many other examples, not least the UN treaties, where the overriding by national legislation would allow countries to ignore their obligations - a dangerous path.

 

 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Nice attempt at misrepresentation of the facts.

 

The news is the UK threatening to not abide by the treaty.

any one who has ever  divorced always knows other side are unreasonable now if you are in a polygamous divorce its a nightmare so a little leak of a threat not so bad is it? 

Its not like eu wants to be fair and make it easy otherwise other net contributors may get idea to leave also

23 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Your comprehension issues are not my concern.

Nothing wrong with my comprehension. I have been saying there will be no deal ever since Johnson got voted in at the election.

You Brexiteers have painted yourselves into a corner with your promises. If you had bothered to actually think about how the trade negotiations were always going to go then this would not be a surprise to you all.

Instead you wrapped a union flag around yourselves and shouted slogans. 

You want to leave the club but still have access to the club but not pay membership fees or obey the rules.

Covid has been in good thing in regard to the EU/UK break up.  We should stop any further negotiation with those EU  muppets and just leave. Its gone on way way too long and they clearly have no intention of being reasonable. Just leave.

3 minutes ago, Dave0206 said:

Its not like eu wants to be fair and make it easy otherwise other net contributors may get idea to leave also

This is true.

 

The only hitch is that the Withdrawal agreement says that both sides must act in good faith. The EU has not done, as you have pointed out.