Prime Minister Boris Johnson has accused the European Union of threatening to impose a food "blockade" between Britain and Northern Ireland that could tear the UK apart, throwing new fuel on the fire of simmering Brexit talks.

Writing in Saturday's Daily Telegraph newspaper, Johnson said the EU's stance justified his government's introduction of new legislation to rewrite its Brexit withdrawal treaty -- a bill that is causing deep alarm among his own MPs.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/brexit-trade-deal-brits-do-not-understand-says-french-foreign-minister-325567">Also read|&nbsp;Brexit trade deal: Brits 'do not understand', says French foreign minister</a>

Talks between London and Brussels on a future trading relationship are deadlocked. Absent a deal by the end of this year, when the full force of Brexit kicks in, Johnson said the EU was bent on an "extreme interpretation" of rules for Northern Ireland.

"We are being told that the EU will not only impose tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but that they might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI," he wrote.

"I have to say that we never seriously believed that the EU would be willing to use a treaty, negotiated in good faith, to blockade one part of the UK, to cut it off, or that they would actually threaten to destroy the economic and territorial integrity of the UK."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/we-wont-blink-first-uk-warns-the-eu-on-brexit-trade-negotiations-325513">Also read|&nbsp;'We won't blink first': UK warns the EU on Brexit trade negotiations</a>

The food dispute centres on the EU's refusal so far to grant Britain "third country" status, which acknowledges that nations meet basic requirements to export their foodstuffs to Europe.

Under Britain's EU withdrawal treaty, Northern Ireland will enjoy a special status to ensure no return of a border with EU member Ireland, in line with a 1998 peace pact that ended three decades of bloodshed.

The EU is worried that post-Brexit Britain could undercut its own food standards, as well as rules on state aid for companies, to send goods into its single market via Northern Ireland.

After another difficult round of trade talks this week in London, chief EU negotiator Michel Barnier said "many uncertainties" remained about Britain's food export regime after January 1.

'Legal safety net'

"More clarity is needed for the EU to do the assessment for the third-country listing of the UK," he said in a statement.

Johnson said his government remained committed to finding agreement with the EU by the end of the year.

"But we cannot leave the theoretical power to carve up our country -– to divide it -– in the hands of an international organisation," he wrote, calling the new UK Internal Market Bill a "legal safety net".

The prime minister's article appeared after he held a chaotic videoconference on Friday evening with mutinous Conservative MPs who are aghast at the prospect of the government tearing up an international treaty.

"We must get this bill through," Johnson wrote, ahead of a debate in parliament on Monday. "So I say to my fellow parliamentarians that we cannot go back to the dark days of last year -– the squabbling that so undermined our negotiators."

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has accused the European Union of threatening to impose a food "blockade" between Britain and Northern Ireland that could tear the UK apart, throwing new fuel on the fire of simmering Brexit talks.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has accused the European Union of threatening to impose a food "blockade" between Britain and Northern Ireland that could tear the UK apart, throwing new fuel on the fire of simmering Brexit talks. Writing in Saturday's Daily Telegraph newspaper, Johnson said the EU's stance justified his government's introduction of new legislation to rewrite its Brexit withdrawal treaty -- a bill that is causing deep alarm among his own MPs. Also read| Brexit trade deal: Brits 'do not understand', says French foreign minister Talks between London and Brussels on a future trading relationship are deadlocked. Absent a deal by the end of this year, when the full force of Brexit kicks in, Johnson said the EU was bent on an "extreme interpretation" of rules for Northern Ireland. "We are being told that the EU will not only impose tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but that they might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI," he wrote. "I have to say that we never seriously believed that the EU would be willing to use a treaty, negotiated in good faith, to blockade one part of the UK, to cut it off, or that they would actually threaten to destroy the economic and territorial integrity of the UK." Also read| 'We won't blink first': UK warns the EU on Brexit trade negotiations The food dispute centres on the EU's refusal so far to grant Britain "third country" status, which acknowledges that nations meet basic requirements to export their foodstuffs to Europe. Under Britain's EU withdrawal treaty, Northern Ireland will enjoy a special status to ensure no return of a border with EU member Ireland, in line with a 1998 peace pact that ended three decades of bloodshed. The EU is worried that post-Brexit Britain could undercut its own food standards, as well as rules on state aid for companies, to send goods into its single market via Northern Ireland. After another difficult round of trade talks this week in London, chief EU negotiator Michel Barnier said "many uncertainties" remained about Britain's food export regime after January 1. 'Legal safety net' "More clarity is needed for the EU to do the assessment for the third-country listing of the UK," he said in a statement. Johnson said his government remained committed to finding agreement with the EU by the end of the year. "But we cannot leave the theoretical power to carve up our country -– to divide it -– in the hands of an international organisation," he wrote, calling the new UK Internal Market Bill a "legal safety net". The prime minister's article appeared after he held a chaotic videoconference on Friday evening with mutinous Conservative MPs who are aghast at the prospect of the government tearing up an international treaty. "We must get this bill through," Johnson wrote, ahead of a debate in parliament on Monday. "So I say to my fellow parliamentarians that we cannot go back to the dark days of last year -– the squabbling that so undermined our negotiators."

Johnson accuses EU of plotting food 'blockade' on UK

By Eugene Beaulieu

The hard work now begins for the United Kingdom to shape an independent trade policy outside of the European Union. Brexit has finally happened after more than three years of negotiations, posturing, parliamentary shenanigans, two elections and considerable policy uncertainty.

As the New York Times reports, the UK faces complex and arduous negotiations trying to maintain its privileged access to 450 million European consumers with zero tariffs or other trade restrictions.

It’s crucial for the U.K. to negotiate and sign some sort of trade agreement with the EU as soon as possible because the transitional period ends on December 31, 2020. After that date, the British will lose their preferential access to that important market. This will significantly disrupt trade flows and supply chains that are vital to the UK economy.

Unfortunately, that’s a very short time to negotiate a deal. Trade deals typically take more than two years to hammer out.

Deal with the US?

The EU is critical but the UK is also looking to sign trade deals with other countries — perhaps none more important for the British economy than one with the United States.

But a deal with the Americans is at best a few years away and will not come easy, even though the US is an important partner for the UK and there has been a lot of discussion about such a deal.

There are many significant roadblocks to such a deal — Donald Trump’s administration is more about protectionism than it is about trade agreements, and it will be extremely difficult to negotiate as the president focuses on re-election. Witness the tumultuous and prolonged negotiations over minor improvements to the NAFTA agreement.

Even if Trump is defeated in November, the Americans have not been able to negotiate a deal with the EU. Talks started in 2013 and were suspended in 2016. The lack of results stemmed from challenges on both sides but does not bode well for a desperate and less economically powerful UK to be able to make headway with the US.

Losing preferential access

Meanwhile, the UK has other important trade policy challenges to resolve. Not only do the British lose privileged access to the EU on December 31, but they also lose preferential access to all the countries and trading blocks with which the EU currently has agreements.

The EU has trade deals fully implemented, or partially in place, with 88 countries, including Canada. Many of these agreements are with small economies, but the point is that due to Brexit, the UK will lose all the preferential access it’s enjoyed as a member of the EU.

The UK must negotiate agreements with these 88 countries simply to maintain its current trade relationship.

But British officials don’t have experience or capacity to effectively negotiate multiple new trade agreements and will already have their hands full negotiating with the EU. This is where Canada comes in.

Canada has an important and comprehensive agreement with the EU called CETA, short for the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. CETA is a cutting-edge and modern trade agreement that is comprehensive in its coverage. It also contains progressive commitments to promote labour rights, environmental protection and sustainable development.

A perfect template

CETA provides the perfect template for the UK to adopt and use as a model for future bilateral agreements after finalising a free-trade agreement with Canada.

Obviously, the UK urgently needs to complete a deal with the EU first and foremost. But a deal with Canada should be its second priority. Not only can CETA provide a model for a UK-EU deal, it can also be the template for the Canada-UK deal.

The UK can get an early and relatively easy win by completing a new trade agreement with Canada. The two countries, in fact, have already agreed informally to move forward on a Canada-UK agreement built on CETA.

Along with Dylan Klemen of the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, I have argued that this would be an important win for Canadian trade policy as well. The UK is Canada’s fifth-largest trading partner and was its largest trading partner when it remained in the EU. The UK is Canada’s second-largest source of foreign direct investment and the second-largest foreign destination for Canadian investors.

The following graphic shows Canada’s 10 most valuable exports (in terms of product groups) to the UK over the last five years. Exports of gold are sizably larger than Canada’s other top exports to the country.

With Brexit, Canada lost one of its key objectives in signing CETA in the first place — free trade with the UK.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau began informal discussions on free trade with former British prime minister Teresa May, and recently confirmed his commitment to a trade agreement between the two countries under Boris Johnson.

Easy to complete?

For Canadian trade policy, there is another reason to move quickly with a CETA-based agreement with the UK — and another reason to believe the agreement will be easy to complete. And that’s the opportunity for Canada to move forward with its diversification strategy and achieve its progressive trade objectives.

The UK and Canada should quickly negotiate a free-trade deal with strong environmental and labour provisions modelled closely after CETA.

Free trade with Canada provides an early and relatively straightforward win for the UK as well as a win for Canada’s trade diversification strategy and progressive trade agenda. It’s also important that both countries complete a deal to avoid disruptions to the flows of trade and commerce between the two countries.

Meanwhile, the UK can use CETA as a template for its own negotiations with the EU. Such a template could be a model for future negotiations with the long list of countries with whom it will be trying to ensure continued market access.

(Eugene Beaulieu is Professor, Economics, University of Calgary)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/canada-u-k-free-trade-a-post-brexit-opportunity-130970">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Eugene Beaulieu The hard work now begins for the United Kingdom to shape an independent trade policy outside of the European Union. Brexit has finally happened after more than three years of negotiations, posturing, parliamentary shenanigans, two elections and considerable policy uncertainty.

By Eugene Beaulieu The hard work now begins for the United Kingdom to shape an independent trade policy outside of the European Union. Brexit has finally happened after more than three years of negotiations, posturing, parliamentary shenanigans, two elections and considerable policy uncertainty. As the New York Times reports, the UK faces complex and arduous negotiations trying to maintain its privileged access to 450 million European consumers with zero tariffs or other trade restrictions. It’s crucial for the U.K. to negotiate and sign some sort of trade agreement with the EU as soon as possible because the transitional period ends on December 31, 2020. After that date, the British will lose their preferential access to that important market. This will significantly disrupt trade flows and supply chains that are vital to the UK economy. Unfortunately, that’s a very short time to negotiate a deal. Trade deals typically take more than two years to hammer out. Deal with the US? The EU is critical but the UK is also looking to sign trade deals with other countries — perhaps none more important for the British economy than one with the United States. But a deal with the Americans is at best a few years away and will not come easy, even though the US is an important partner for the UK and there has been a lot of discussion about such a deal. There are many significant roadblocks to such a deal — Donald Trump’s administration is more about protectionism than it is about trade agreements, and it will be extremely difficult to negotiate as the president focuses on re-election. Witness the tumultuous and prolonged negotiations over minor improvements to the NAFTA agreement. Even if Trump is defeated in November, the Americans have not been able to negotiate a deal with the EU. Talks started in 2013 and were suspended in 2016. The lack of results stemmed from challenges on both sides but does not bode well for a desperate and less economically powerful UK to be able to make headway with the US. Losing preferential access Meanwhile, the UK has other important trade policy challenges to resolve. Not only do the British lose privileged access to the EU on December 31, but they also lose preferential access to all the countries and trading blocks with which the EU currently has agreements. The EU has trade deals fully implemented, or partially in place, with 88 countries, including Canada. Many of these agreements are with small economies, but the point is that due to Brexit, the UK will lose all the preferential access it’s enjoyed as a member of the EU. The UK must negotiate agreements with these 88 countries simply to maintain its current trade relationship. But British officials don’t have experience or capacity to effectively negotiate multiple new trade agreements and will already have their hands full negotiating with the EU. This is where Canada comes in. Canada has an important and comprehensive agreement with the EU called CETA, short for the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. CETA is a cutting-edge and modern trade agreement that is comprehensive in its coverage. It also contains progressive commitments to promote labour rights, environmental protection and sustainable development. A perfect template CETA provides the perfect template for the UK to adopt and use as a model for future bilateral agreements after finalising a free-trade agreement with Canada. Obviously, the UK urgently needs to complete a deal with the EU first and foremost. But a deal with Canada should be its second priority. Not only can CETA provide a model for a UK-EU deal, it can also be the template for the Canada-UK deal. The UK can get an early and relatively easy win by completing a new trade agreement with Canada. The two countries, in fact, have already agreed informally to move forward on a Canada-UK agreement built on CETA. Along with Dylan Klemen of the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, I have argued that this would be an important win for Canadian trade policy as well. The UK is Canada’s fifth-largest trading partner and was its largest trading partner when it remained in the EU. The UK is Canada’s second-largest source of foreign direct investment and the second-largest foreign destination for Canadian investors. The following graphic shows Canada’s 10 most valuable exports (in terms of product groups) to the UK over the last five years. Exports of gold are sizably larger than Canada’s other top exports to the country. With Brexit, Canada lost one of its key objectives in signing CETA in the first place — free trade with the UK. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau began informal discussions on free trade with former British prime minister Teresa May, and recently confirmed his commitment to a trade agreement between the two countries under Boris Johnson. Easy to complete? For Canadian trade policy, there is another reason to move quickly with a CETA-based agreement with the UK — and another reason to believe the agreement will be easy to complete. And that’s the opportunity for Canada to move forward with its diversification strategy and achieve its progressive trade objectives. The UK and Canada should quickly negotiate a free-trade deal with strong environmental and labour provisions modelled closely after CETA. Free trade with Canada provides an early and relatively straightforward win for the UK as well as a win for Canada’s trade diversification strategy and progressive trade agenda. It’s also important that both countries complete a deal to avoid disruptions to the flows of trade and commerce between the two countries. Meanwhile, the UK can use CETA as a template for its own negotiations with the EU. Such a template could be a model for future negotiations with the long list of countries with whom it will be trying to ensure continued market access. (Eugene Beaulieu is Professor, Economics, University of Calgary) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Canada-UK free trade: A post-Brexit opportunity

After over three and a half years of political battle,<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/barnier-warns-european-union-and-britain-must-rebuild-after-brexit-276906"> Britain is all set to leave the European Union</a> on January 31 as will strike 2300 GMT.&nbsp;

In an official statement to mark the occasion, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson hailed the "new dawn" and said that it is the "new beginning for the UK".

"Our job as the government, my job, is to bring this country together and take us forward," Johnson said.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/boris-johnson-hails-new-dawn-as-britain-set-to-bid-farewell-to-european-union-277806">Also read: Boris Johnson hails 'new dawn' as Britain set to bid farewell to European Union</a>

"This is not an end but a beginning. This is the moment when the dawn breaks and the curtain goes up on a new act."

Here is what will change for the UK after Brexit.

Power

While the United Kingdom remains a member in all but name, it loses its vote in the meetings in Brussels that ultimately decide EU policy on matters ranging from financial services to the definition of a European-made car.

Brussels will try to discern exactly how Prime Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/latest-world-newsnew-dawn-or-biggest-gamble-uk-headlines-on-brexit-day-277638">Boris Johnson</a> plans to overhaul the United Kingdom, will he try to build a competitor just outside the EU by turbo-charging the economy and the City of London?

Passports

The colour of British passports will go back to blue, which were in use since&nbsp;1921 until UK joined EU. They were then replaced by the current burgundy design.

However, existing burgundy passports will continue to be valid until their&nbsp;expiry date.

For British people and EU citizens

British and EU citizens will continue to have the right to live and work in each other's countries until the end of the year because both sides agreed a transition period which preserves membership&nbsp;until 2021.

The British government has told the estimated 3.5 million EU citizens living in Britain that they have until at least the end of the December to register to retain their rights.

Companies and customs

The regulatory environment for companies won’t change following Brexit because of the transition period.

After the end of the transition deal, UK customs will apply for goods coming from third countries to Northern Ireland only. For goods deemed to be headed for the EU market, UK authorities will collect EU tariffs.

There will be no customs checks on the island of Ireland, they will be done in ports.&nbsp;

Trade

As soon as the United Kingdom formally leaves the EU, it can start negotiating trade deals with other countries.

The European Union - which accounts for about half of the United Kingdom's trade and the United States are the government's top targets for securing new trade deals.

A sticking point in US talks will be a British proposal for a unilateral digital services tax, despite a US threat to levy retaliatory tariffs on British-made autos.

(With inputs from Reuters)

After over three and a half years of political battle, Britain is all set to leave the European Union on January 31 as will strike 2300 GMT. In an official statement to mark the occasion, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson hailed the "new dawn" and said that it is the "new beginning for the UK".

After over three and a half years of political battle, Britain is all set to leave the European Union on January 31 as will strike 2300 GMT. In an official statement to mark the occasion, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson hailed the "new dawn" and said that it is the "new beginning for the UK". "Our job as the government, my job, is to bring this country together and take us forward," Johnson said. Also read: Boris Johnson hails 'new dawn' as Britain set to bid farewell to European Union "This is not an end but a beginning. This is the moment when the dawn breaks and the curtain goes up on a new act." Here is what will change for the UK after Brexit. Power While the United Kingdom remains a member in all but name, it loses its vote in the meetings in Brussels that ultimately decide EU policy on matters ranging from financial services to the definition of a European-made car. Brussels will try to discern exactly how Prime Minister Boris Johnson plans to overhaul the United Kingdom, will he try to build a competitor just outside the EU by turbo-charging the economy and the City of London? Passports The colour of British passports will go back to blue, which were in use since 1921 until UK joined EU. They were then replaced by the current burgundy design. However, existing burgundy passports will continue to be valid until their expiry date. For British people and EU citizens British and EU citizens will continue to have the right to live and work in each other's countries until the end of the year because both sides agreed a transition period which preserves membership until 2021. The British government has told the estimated 3.5 million EU citizens living in Britain that they have until at least the end of the December to register to retain their rights. Companies and customs The regulatory environment for companies won’t change following Brexit because of the transition period. After the end of the transition deal, UK customs will apply for goods coming from third countries to Northern Ireland only. For goods deemed to be headed for the EU market, UK authorities will collect EU tariffs. There will be no customs checks on the island of Ireland, they will be done in ports. Trade As soon as the United Kingdom formally leaves the EU, it can start negotiating trade deals with other countries. The European Union - which accounts for about half of the United Kingdom's trade and the United States are the government's top targets for securing new trade deals. A sticking point in US talks will be a British proposal for a unilateral digital services tax, despite a US threat to levy retaliatory tariffs on British-made autos. (With inputs from Reuters)

Brexit: What changes and what stays the same for UK?

Queen Elizabeth II gave her formal assent Thursday for Britain to end its decades-long involvement in the European Union and seek a more independent but uncertain future at the end of the month.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/finally-british-lawmakers-approve-historic-brexit-deal-273275">Also Read: Finally, British lawmakers approve historic Brexit deal</a>

The head of state's ceremonial approval of the withdrawal legislation allows Britain to leave its closest neighbours and trading partners after years of bickering and three delays.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Her Majesty the Queen has now granted <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RoyalAssent?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RoyalAssent</a> to the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BrexitBill?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BrexitBill</a> which therefore becomes the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BrexitAct?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BrexitAct</a>. Enshrined in law, this enables the UK to leave the EU on 31st Jan. <a href="https://t.co/hzv2o2bMfr">pic.twitter.com/hzv2o2bMfr</a>
— Steve Barclay (@SteveBarclay) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveBarclay/status/1220355132984057856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 23, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Two top EU officials in Brussels are expected to sign the separation treaty on Friday and Prime Minister Boris Johnson -- the pro-Brexit figurehead of Britain's seismic 2016 referendum -- will put his name on it in the coming days.

"At times it felt like we would never cross the Brexit finish line, but we’ve done it," Johnson said after both houses of the British parliament ratified the withdrawal bill on Wednesday.

"Now we can put the rancour and division of the past three years behind us and focus on delivering a bright, exciting future."

The January 31 split caps a remarkable political comeback for Johnson at one of the most difficult points in Britain's post-war history.

He quit former prime minister Theresa May's government in 2018 in protest at what he viewed as her pro-European separation terms.

Johnson returned as May's successor in July last year and has since managed to negotiate his own deal with Brussels and regain the government's control of parliament in a risky early election last month.

The rest was a formality. Lawmakers barely debated the withdrawal agreement before passing it -- even though critics called it worse for Britain than the one reached by May.

Johnson will celebrate his victory by issuing commemorative coins and chairing a special cabinet meeting in England's pro-Brexit north on January 31.

Johnson will now be responsible for defining the terms on which Britain trades and shares everything from data to fishing waters with the remaining 27 EU member states.

The formal talks are not expected to begin until March but the war of words is already intense.

Johnson rejects EU arguments that the end-of-year negotiations deadline is too short to reach a comprehensive deal.

The UK government is also demanding the post-Brexit right to set its own rules on politically sensitive issues such as environmental standards and workers' rights.

EU officials say this will give Britain an unfair advantage and are threatening to retaliate with tariffs and quotas that could hit the UK auto and pharmaceutical industries especially hard.

European Central Bank chief Christine Lagarde said the bloc's financial system was ready for the next stage.

"There can always be a risk somewhere," she said in Frankfurt. "But I think in good conscience we have covered everything that we thought was necessary."

Some analysts believe Johnson is prepared to pay the price of short-term economic damage in order to deliver on pledge to "get Brexit done".

He argues that greater flexibility will help him reach a quick post-Brexit agreement with the United States and other nations that are growing much faster than those in Europe.

US officials say they are eager to strike a deal with Johnson.

An agreement "is an absolute priority for President (Donald) Trump and we expect to complete that with them this year," US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said ahead of his arrival in London this weekend.

US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross added that Johnson would have an easier time with Washington than Brussels because "there are far fewer issues between the UK and US."

Johnson is expected to lay out his vision for the post-Brexit agreement with Brussels in a big policy address early next month.

"Once we have left the EU in just over a week's time we'll be free to start having discussions with countries around the world including the US," Downing Street said Wednesday. 
&nbsp;

Queen Elizabeth II gave her formal assent Thursday for Britain to end its decades-long involvement in the European Union and seek a more independent but uncertain future at the end of the month.

Queen Elizabeth II gave her formal assent Thursday for Britain to end its decades-long involvement in the European Union and seek a more independent but uncertain future at the end of the month. Also Read: Finally, British lawmakers approve historic Brexit deal The head of state's ceremonial approval of the withdrawal legislation allows Britain to leave its closest neighbours and trading partners after years of bickering and three delays. Her Majesty the Queen has now granted #RoyalAssent to the #BrexitBill which therefore becomes the #BrexitAct. Enshrined in law, this enables the UK to leave the EU on 31st Jan. pic.twitter.com/hzv2o2bMfr — Steve Barclay (@SteveBarclay) January 23, 2020 × Two top EU officials in Brussels are expected to sign the separation treaty on Friday and Prime Minister Boris Johnson -- the pro-Brexit figurehead of Britain's seismic 2016 referendum -- will put his name on it in the coming days. "At times it felt like we would never cross the Brexit finish line, but we’ve done it," Johnson said after both houses of the British parliament ratified the withdrawal bill on Wednesday. "Now we can put the rancour and division of the past three years behind us and focus on delivering a bright, exciting future." The January 31 split caps a remarkable political comeback for Johnson at one of the most difficult points in Britain's post-war history. He quit former prime minister Theresa May's government in 2018 in protest at what he viewed as her pro-European separation terms. Johnson returned as May's successor in July last year and has since managed to negotiate his own deal with Brussels and regain the government's control of parliament in a risky early election last month. The rest was a formality. Lawmakers barely debated the withdrawal agreement before passing it -- even though critics called it worse for Britain than the one reached by May. Johnson will celebrate his victory by issuing commemorative coins and chairing a special cabinet meeting in England's pro-Brexit north on January 31. Johnson will now be responsible for defining the terms on which Britain trades and shares everything from data to fishing waters with the remaining 27 EU member states. The formal talks are not expected to begin until March but the war of words is already intense. Johnson rejects EU arguments that the end-of-year negotiations deadline is too short to reach a comprehensive deal. The UK government is also demanding the post-Brexit right to set its own rules on politically sensitive issues such as environmental standards and workers' rights. EU officials say this will give Britain an unfair advantage and are threatening to retaliate with tariffs and quotas that could hit the UK auto and pharmaceutical industries especially hard. European Central Bank chief Christine Lagarde said the bloc's financial system was ready for the next stage. "There can always be a risk somewhere," she said in Frankfurt. "But I think in good conscience we have covered everything that we thought was necessary." Some analysts believe Johnson is prepared to pay the price of short-term economic damage in order to deliver on pledge to "get Brexit done". He argues that greater flexibility will help him reach a quick post-Brexit agreement with the United States and other nations that are growing much faster than those in Europe. US officials say they are eager to strike a deal with Johnson. An agreement "is an absolute priority for President (Donald) Trump and we expect to complete that with them this year," US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said ahead of his arrival in London this weekend. US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross added that Johnson would have an easier time with Washington than Brussels because "there are far fewer issues between the UK and US." Johnson is expected to lay out his vision for the post-Brexit agreement with Brussels in a big policy address early next month. "Once we have left the EU in just over a week's time we'll be free to start having discussions with countries around the world including the US," Downing Street said Wednesday.

Queen Elizabeth II approves UK government's Brexit bill

The&nbsp;pound&nbsp;extended its slide on Wednesday, as Britain's fixing of a fresh Brexit deadline rekindled fears of a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/welcoming-new-lawmakers-pm-johnson-vows-a-speedy-brexit-268619">chaotic exit</a> from the European Union, while the dollar won back lost ground.

Sterling has collapsed more than 3 per cent&nbsp;since it peaked at an 18-month high of $1.3516 after Prime Minister Boris Johnson's landslide electoral victory last week.

His government, which campaigned to "<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/boris-johnson-uses-threat-of-brexit-cliff-edge-to-demand-eu-trade-deal-by-end-of-2020-268681">get Brexit done</a>," on Tuesday set the end of 2020 as an immovable deadline.

"With the level of frothiness in positioning, I think people had priced in very smooth sailing throughout 2020," said Chris Weston, head of research at Melbourne brokerage Pepperstone.

"This has given us a snap back to&nbsp;reality. If you thought Brexit was solved, and we're going to see very, very smooth times ahead, then that's not quite going to be the case."

Sterling last traded at $1.3102, below where it sat before polling day and 0.2 per cent&nbsp;lower for the session.

Asked if the government would legislate to rule out any extension of the transition beyond 2020, one of Johnson's most senior ministers, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/gove-says-united-kingdom-will-leave-european-union-by-october-31-farage-calls-for-general-election-257092">Michael Gove</a>, said "Exactly, absolutely."

In Brussels, officials said the timetable was "rigid" and likely to limit the scope of any deal.

Against the euro, the&nbsp;pound&nbsp;hit a two-week low of 85.17 pence per euro. The currency approaches another hurdle with inflation data due at 0930 GMT.

Focus will also be on German business sentiment data due later on Wednesday, along with a speech from European Central Bank Chief Christine Lagarde at 0830 GMT and remarks from US&nbsp;Federal Reserve Chicago President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trade-uncertainty-to-trim-850-billion-global-output-fed-paper-247964">Charles Evans</a> at 1740 GMT.

Split Milk

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/sterling-rebounds-on-eve-of-uk-election-267749">Sterling's </a>slide supported the dollar to its highest in a week against a basket of currencies at 97.320.

Elsewhere, moves were slight as trading slows down into the holiday season and as the currency market waits for details on the Sino-US&nbsp;trade deal.

In the absence of fresh news, the Chinese yuan slipped back to the weaker side of 7-per-dollar at 7.0061.

"It is a slightly more generalised firmer US&nbsp;dollar. I don't think this is news or fundamentally driven flows," said Ray Attrill, Head of FX strategy at National Australia Bank.

The greenback was a little weaker on the euro at $1.1131. The kiwi&nbsp;was knocked by an unexpectedly steep drop in dairy prices, the top national export, pushing the currency to a week low of $0.6555.

The Australian dollar&nbsp;held near its lowest in a week as well ahead of crucial employment data due on Thursday. A disappointment could bring forward another rate cut, especially after the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) foreshadowed possible easing in December meeting minutes released on Tuesday.

"The RBA minutes struck a more dovish tone than the statement on the day, specifically citing the February meeting as a suitable time to reassess the (currently upbeat) outlook," Westpac analysts said in a note.

Futures markets have priced an even chance of a benchmark rate cut from an already record low 0.75 per cent.

The pound extended its slide on Wednesday, as Britain's fixing of a fresh Brexit deadline rekindled fears of a chaotic exit from the European Union, while the dollar won back lost ground.

The pound extended its slide on Wednesday, as Britain's fixing of a fresh Brexit deadline rekindled fears of a chaotic exit from the European Union, while the dollar won back lost ground. Sterling has collapsed more than 3 per cent since it peaked at an 18-month high of $1.3516 after Prime Minister Boris Johnson's landslide electoral victory last week. His government, which campaigned to "get Brexit done," on Tuesday set the end of 2020 as an immovable deadline. "With the level of frothiness in positioning, I think people had priced in very smooth sailing throughout 2020," said Chris Weston, head of research at Melbourne brokerage Pepperstone. "This has given us a snap back to reality. If you thought Brexit was solved, and we're going to see very, very smooth times ahead, then that's not quite going to be the case." Sterling last traded at $1.3102, below where it sat before polling day and 0.2 per cent lower for the session. Asked if the government would legislate to rule out any extension of the transition beyond 2020, one of Johnson's most senior ministers, Michael Gove, said "Exactly, absolutely." In Brussels, officials said the timetable was "rigid" and likely to limit the scope of any deal. Against the euro, the pound hit a two-week low of 85.17 pence per euro. The currency approaches another hurdle with inflation data due at 0930 GMT. Focus will also be on German business sentiment data due later on Wednesday, along with a speech from European Central Bank Chief Christine Lagarde at 0830 GMT and remarks from US Federal Reserve Chicago President Charles Evans at 1740 GMT. Split Milk Sterling's slide supported the dollar to its highest in a week against a basket of currencies at 97.320. Elsewhere, moves were slight as trading slows down into the holiday season and as the currency market waits for details on the Sino-US trade deal. In the absence of fresh news, the Chinese yuan slipped back to the weaker side of 7-per-dollar at 7.0061. "It is a slightly more generalised firmer US dollar. I don't think this is news or fundamentally driven flows," said Ray Attrill, Head of FX strategy at National Australia Bank. The greenback was a little weaker on the euro at $1.1131. The kiwi was knocked by an unexpectedly steep drop in dairy prices, the top national export, pushing the currency to a week low of $0.6555. The Australian dollar held near its lowest in a week as well ahead of crucial employment data due on Thursday. A disappointment could bring forward another rate cut, especially after the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) foreshadowed possible easing in December meeting minutes released on Tuesday. "The RBA minutes struck a more dovish tone than the statement on the day, specifically citing the February meeting as a suitable time to reassess the (currently upbeat) outlook," Westpac analysts said in a note. Futures markets have priced an even chance of a benchmark rate cut from an already record low 0.75 per cent.

Reality bites pound as Brexit fears return

By Victoria Honeyman

With Boris Johnson’s impressive election victory, one of the biggest questions in British politics will be answered: Brexit, in some form, will be done.

But what does this election victory mean for Britain’s standing in the world? Who will the UK now count as its allies, and its enemies?

The manner of Brexit matters in terms of Britain’s global standing. The large majority he has secured might give Johnson more room for manoeuvre in Westminster, making a softer Brexit possible. This would undoubtedly allow for smoother relations with the UK’s neighbours, but a softer Brexit might also have more advantages globally.

Overseas, Brexit is viewed as a form of national self-harm by many, and a softer departure may well prevent Britain’s international standing from being substantially damaged. A softer Brexit, which might involve some freedom of movement, may also allow Britain to strike a stronger bargaining position in future trade negotiations with both the EU and other nations. By remaining at least partially linked to the EU, Britain would be able to present itself in trade negotiations as part of a larger market, giving it more power and a louder voice.

US and China

Beyond Brexit, Johnson and US President Donald Trump will undoubtedly remain close, meaning the so-called “special relationship” will be publicly supported and championed. This public friendship may not make Johnson popular on the global stage, but with his majority, and a potential victory for Trump in November 2020, he may not care.

Bonhomie aside, the extent that camaraderie between Johnson and Trump will benefit Britain is more questionable. Securing a favourable post-Brexit trade deal with the US will remain very challenging.

Britain is already looking to strengthen economic and political ties with Commonwealth countries – Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, swiftly tweeted his congratulations to Johnson. The reality of leaning on the Commonwealth will not be as lucrative as membership of the EU, but the Conservatives are keen to draw on it nonetheless.

Specific countries, like India, will become increasingly important. An economic powerhouse, the UK will want to secure a trade deal with India. But at what cost? For India, any trade deal with the UK will have to come with the promise of a relaxation of the visa requirements for Indian nationals. That pay-off may be difficult for Johnson to sell to an electorate which has been repeatedly promised a reduction in immigration and a tightening up of immigration policy from the Conservatives.

China will be another key relationship to watch in future. Relations with China have not been particularly good over the past 20 years. For example China froze investment into the UK under the coalition government following David Cameron’s meeting with the Dalai Lama in 2012. Johnson’s government will be looking to improve this relationship in the hope of a beneficial trade deal.

But how can this be achieved? One recent example is the Conservative government’s response to the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. It might be expected, because of Britain’s historic links with Hong Kong and Britain’s desire to maintain democracy in the territory, that Johnson’s Conservatives would be outspoken in their support of the democratic movements.

Instead, the Johnson government has been quiet on the violence in the territory, a response which will undoubtedly please the Chinese government. It may be that silence is the cost of a future trade deal with China – a stance which has changed from under the leadership of Theresa May, where Jeremy Hunt was fairly outspoken on Hong Kong while foreign secretary.

Weakened

For a post-Brexit Britain, there will undoubtedly be some economic opportunities, but there is a cost. Outside of the EU, Britain is a much smaller power on the global stage, both economically and politically.

To secure those all-important trade deals, Britain will have to decide what pay-offs it is willing to make. For all his bluster, Johnson may have to swallow some uncomfortable truths and some uncomfortable compromises. Whether he can sell those at home is another matter.

The size of the Conservatives’ victory will hammer the final nail in the coffin of the hopes of those in the EU, and in the UK, who wanted a reversal of Brexit. Johnson is not a popular man in Europe, but Brexit fatigue has made his European counterparts keen to work with him to get Brexit finished. While securing a trade deal with the EU by the end of December 2020 will be tricky, it is also in the EU’s interest to make sure that trade remains smooth. 
 
(Victoria Honeyman is Lecturer in British Politics, University of Leeds) 
 
(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-boris-johnsons-victory-means-for-britains-place-in-the-world-128738">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

By Victoria Honeyman With Boris Johnson’s impressive election victory, one of the biggest questions in British politics will be answered: Brexit, in some form, will be done.

By Victoria Honeyman With Boris Johnson’s impressive election victory, one of the biggest questions in British politics will be answered: Brexit, in some form, will be done. But what does this election victory mean for Britain’s standing in the world? Who will the UK now count as its allies, and its enemies? The manner of Brexit matters in terms of Britain’s global standing. The large majority he has secured might give Johnson more room for manoeuvre in Westminster, making a softer Brexit possible. This would undoubtedly allow for smoother relations with the UK’s neighbours, but a softer Brexit might also have more advantages globally. Overseas, Brexit is viewed as a form of national self-harm by many, and a softer departure may well prevent Britain’s international standing from being substantially damaged. A softer Brexit, which might involve some freedom of movement, may also allow Britain to strike a stronger bargaining position in future trade negotiations with both the EU and other nations. By remaining at least partially linked to the EU, Britain would be able to present itself in trade negotiations as part of a larger market, giving it more power and a louder voice. US and China Beyond Brexit, Johnson and US President Donald Trump will undoubtedly remain close, meaning the so-called “special relationship” will be publicly supported and championed. This public friendship may not make Johnson popular on the global stage, but with his majority, and a potential victory for Trump in November 2020, he may not care. Bonhomie aside, the extent that camaraderie between Johnson and Trump will benefit Britain is more questionable. Securing a favourable post-Brexit trade deal with the US will remain very challenging. Britain is already looking to strengthen economic and political ties with Commonwealth countries – Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, swiftly tweeted his congratulations to Johnson. The reality of leaning on the Commonwealth will not be as lucrative as membership of the EU, but the Conservatives are keen to draw on it nonetheless. Specific countries, like India, will become increasingly important. An economic powerhouse, the UK will want to secure a trade deal with India. But at what cost? For India, any trade deal with the UK will have to come with the promise of a relaxation of the visa requirements for Indian nationals. That pay-off may be difficult for Johnson to sell to an electorate which has been repeatedly promised a reduction in immigration and a tightening up of immigration policy from the Conservatives. China will be another key relationship to watch in future. Relations with China have not been particularly good over the past 20 years. For example China froze investment into the UK under the coalition government following David Cameron’s meeting with the Dalai Lama in 2012. Johnson’s government will be looking to improve this relationship in the hope of a beneficial trade deal. But how can this be achieved? One recent example is the Conservative government’s response to the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. It might be expected, because of Britain’s historic links with Hong Kong and Britain’s desire to maintain democracy in the territory, that Johnson’s Conservatives would be outspoken in their support of the democratic movements. Instead, the Johnson government has been quiet on the violence in the territory, a response which will undoubtedly please the Chinese government. It may be that silence is the cost of a future trade deal with China – a stance which has changed from under the leadership of Theresa May, where Jeremy Hunt was fairly outspoken on Hong Kong while foreign secretary. Weakened For a post-Brexit Britain, there will undoubtedly be some economic opportunities, but there is a cost. Outside of the EU, Britain is a much smaller power on the global stage, both economically and politically. To secure those all-important trade deals, Britain will have to decide what pay-offs it is willing to make. For all his bluster, Johnson may have to swallow some uncomfortable truths and some uncomfortable compromises. Whether he can sell those at home is another matter. The size of the Conservatives’ victory will hammer the final nail in the coffin of the hopes of those in the EU, and in the UK, who wanted a reversal of Brexit. Johnson is not a popular man in Europe, but Brexit fatigue has made his European counterparts keen to work with him to get Brexit finished. While securing a trade deal with the EU by the end of December 2020 will be tricky, it is also in the EU’s interest to make sure that trade remains smooth. (Victoria Honeyman is Lecturer in British Politics, University of Leeds) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

UK election: What Boris Johnson’s victory means for Britain’s place in the world

By Martin Farr

Foreign affairs rarely play a role in British elections. The exception, of course, is Europe: both Labour in 1974 and the Conservatives in 2015 won a narrow parliamentary majority after promising a referendum on UK membership.

For reasons of practicality and protocol, elections are usually scheduled to avoid summits, or the visits of foreign leaders. But nothing is normal any more and 2019’s rushed general election features the first visit of a US president to Watford, an unprepossessing commuter town north of London. Donald Trump flew into the UK on December 2 for a two-day visit to attend a meeting of NATO leaders marking the 70th anniversary of the alliance.

One of the many curiosities of our age is that this most unpopular US president for the British should come so often. Another is that Boris Johnson, a US-born, Atlanticist prime minister, earnestly wishes the leader of the free world was not in the UK. At the same time, Jeremy Corbyn, a very-far-from Atlanticist leader of the opposition, is delighted that he should be.

Using the special relationship 
 
The Foreign Office may be the second most prestigious office of state, but in elections, foreign secretaries or their shadows from the opposition seldom find themselves much called on. Defence has had an impact though, such as in 1983 and 1987 when Labour was portrayed as too pacifistic, and in 2005, when the party wished they had been so.

Those episodes revolved around the special relationship between the US and UK – and prime ministers have not been averse to the blandishments of presidents on pre-election visits to the US, such as Harold Macmillan in 1959, and David Cameron in 2015.

Presidents have been prepared to assist in other ways, as I’ve been examining in my research on the historical relationships between US presidents and British premiers. Ronald Reagan’s humiliation of Labour leader Neil Kinnock in 1987 calculatedly bolstered the then prime minister Margaret Thatcher. But there has never been a presidential visit during a general election before now.

Part of the appeal of the Leave campaign in the EU referendum was Britain going out into the world and making more of its historic ties with what Winston Churchill called “English-speaking peoples”. This overlooked the fact that every American president since Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s has wanted Britain to lead in Europe because it enhanced US interests to have its closest ally at the centre of what became the world’s largest trading bloc. The exception, as ever, is President Trump.

The special relationship has weakened in the topsy-turvy political world since 2015 – the year Corbyn became Labour leader, Trump announced his presidential candidacy and the British parliament passed legislation to hold a referendum on EU membership. In April 2016 Barack Obama – the most popular recent American president for the British public – visited the UK at the invitation of the prime minister, David Cameron, to assist with the increasingly panicked Remain campaign.

At the personal request of Cameron, Obama told the world that in the event of Brexit, Britain would be at “the back of the queue” for a trade deal. His intervention backfired, reinforcing the Leave narrative of a remote and condescending elite – and Remain never recovered.

Always keen to present himself in opposition to Obama, Trump has pushed his own anti-establishment narrative, which extended to condemnation of transnational institutions including NATO and the EU. In offering the promise of a free trade agreement to the UK, Trump has presented himself as a champion of self-government and so of Brexit, responsibility for which he characteristically ascribed to himself.

As if that were not a sufficient transgression of diplomatic norms, Trump also suggested in 2016 that Brexit Party leader, Nigel Farage, should be appointed British ambassador to the US.

More seriously, his relationship with Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May, was quite unlike that of any other president and prime minister, as I’ve examined in forthcoming research. Standing alongside May in 2018 and 2019, Trump embarrassed her, and breaking with any sense of protocol or propriety, also praised the person clearly positioning himself to replace her – who, shortly thereafter, did just that.

US presidents have attended NATO summits in the UK before – Jimmy Carter in 1977, George HW Bush in 1990, and Obama in 2014. But Trump’s attitudes towards NATO were originally the principal source of British consternation at his election.

It wasn’t known then that he wasn’t a man of settled policies. In three years he has moved from being NATO’s most prominent critic, to its staunchest defender in the face of criticism of the alliance by the French president, Emmanuel Macron.

A liability for Johnson

It would never have been necessary with any other president, but on this December visit Trump has done as requested – he has observed convention and said he would “stay out of the election”. Except that, insofar as he flagrantly contradicted something he said the last time he was in the UK in the express interest of the prime minister, he has not stayed out of British politics.

Significantly, the impact of Trump’s visit to the UK is on a domestic policy area that is, by contrast, always central to elections: the National Health Service. In a campaign characterised on all sides by millions of this, billions of that, and trillions of the other, Labour has persistently claimed there will be a US-imposed increase in the NHS drugs bill of £500m a week. NHS staff duly joined the now-traditional public protests that mark a Trump visit.

If Trump was ever an asset for Johnson, he’s now deemed a liability. The president sees something of himself in man he’s called “Britain Trump”, not least perhaps their at times disarming physical resemblance. But given British public attitudes to Trump, it’s prudent for Johnson to maintain distance during the last week of a tight election. Trump’s toxicity has the potential to poison Johnson’s hitherto effective campaign.

So after much speculation as to whether they would meet – itself extraordinary – Johnson and Trump did, but, equally extraordinarily, there were no photographs of the host and his guest at that meeting at Number 10 or at a Buckingham Palace reception. The two were eventually photographed together arriving at The Grove, the venue for the NATO leaders summit in Watford.

By contrast, Corbyn has wanted nothing more than the chance to be photographed challenging Trump on the NHS – though it emerged they did not meet at the palace. But not on NATO. On which they agree. A voter could be forgiven for being confused. 
 
(Martin Farr is Senior Lecturer in Modern and Contemporary British History, Newcastle University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/donald-trump-goes-to-watford-what-happens-when-us-presidents-enter-british-elections-127651">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Martin Farr Foreign affairs rarely play a role in British elections. The exception, of course, is Europe: both Labour in 1974 and the Conservatives in 2015 won a narrow parliamentary majority after promising a referendum on UK membership.

By Martin Farr Foreign affairs rarely play a role in British elections. The exception, of course, is Europe: both Labour in 1974 and the Conservatives in 2015 won a narrow parliamentary majority after promising a referendum on UK membership. For reasons of practicality and protocol, elections are usually scheduled to avoid summits, or the visits of foreign leaders. But nothing is normal any more and 2019’s rushed general election features the first visit of a US president to Watford, an unprepossessing commuter town north of London. Donald Trump flew into the UK on December 2 for a two-day visit to attend a meeting of NATO leaders marking the 70th anniversary of the alliance. One of the many curiosities of our age is that this most unpopular US president for the British should come so often. Another is that Boris Johnson, a US-born, Atlanticist prime minister, earnestly wishes the leader of the free world was not in the UK. At the same time, Jeremy Corbyn, a very-far-from Atlanticist leader of the opposition, is delighted that he should be. Using the special relationship The Foreign Office may be the second most prestigious office of state, but in elections, foreign secretaries or their shadows from the opposition seldom find themselves much called on. Defence has had an impact though, such as in 1983 and 1987 when Labour was portrayed as too pacifistic, and in 2005, when the party wished they had been so. Those episodes revolved around the special relationship between the US and UK – and prime ministers have not been averse to the blandishments of presidents on pre-election visits to the US, such as Harold Macmillan in 1959, and David Cameron in 2015. Presidents have been prepared to assist in other ways, as I’ve been examining in my research on the historical relationships between US presidents and British premiers. Ronald Reagan’s humiliation of Labour leader Neil Kinnock in 1987 calculatedly bolstered the then prime minister Margaret Thatcher. But there has never been a presidential visit during a general election before now. Part of the appeal of the Leave campaign in the EU referendum was Britain going out into the world and making more of its historic ties with what Winston Churchill called “English-speaking peoples”. This overlooked the fact that every American president since Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s has wanted Britain to lead in Europe because it enhanced US interests to have its closest ally at the centre of what became the world’s largest trading bloc. The exception, as ever, is President Trump. The special relationship has weakened in the topsy-turvy political world since 2015 – the year Corbyn became Labour leader, Trump announced his presidential candidacy and the British parliament passed legislation to hold a referendum on EU membership. In April 2016 Barack Obama – the most popular recent American president for the British public – visited the UK at the invitation of the prime minister, David Cameron, to assist with the increasingly panicked Remain campaign. At the personal request of Cameron, Obama told the world that in the event of Brexit, Britain would be at “the back of the queue” for a trade deal. His intervention backfired, reinforcing the Leave narrative of a remote and condescending elite – and Remain never recovered. Always keen to present himself in opposition to Obama, Trump has pushed his own anti-establishment narrative, which extended to condemnation of transnational institutions including NATO and the EU. In offering the promise of a free trade agreement to the UK, Trump has presented himself as a champion of self-government and so of Brexit, responsibility for which he characteristically ascribed to himself. As if that were not a sufficient transgression of diplomatic norms, Trump also suggested in 2016 that Brexit Party leader, Nigel Farage, should be appointed British ambassador to the US. More seriously, his relationship with Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May, was quite unlike that of any other president and prime minister, as I’ve examined in forthcoming research. Standing alongside May in 2018 and 2019, Trump embarrassed her, and breaking with any sense of protocol or propriety, also praised the person clearly positioning himself to replace her – who, shortly thereafter, did just that. US presidents have attended NATO summits in the UK before – Jimmy Carter in 1977, George HW Bush in 1990, and Obama in 2014. But Trump’s attitudes towards NATO were originally the principal source of British consternation at his election. It wasn’t known then that he wasn’t a man of settled policies. In three years he has moved from being NATO’s most prominent critic, to its staunchest defender in the face of criticism of the alliance by the French president, Emmanuel Macron. A liability for Johnson It would never have been necessary with any other president, but on this December visit Trump has done as requested – he has observed convention and said he would “stay out of the election”. Except that, insofar as he flagrantly contradicted something he said the last time he was in the UK in the express interest of the prime minister, he has not stayed out of British politics. Significantly, the impact of Trump’s visit to the UK is on a domestic policy area that is, by contrast, always central to elections: the National Health Service. In a campaign characterised on all sides by millions of this, billions of that, and trillions of the other, Labour has persistently claimed there will be a US-imposed increase in the NHS drugs bill of £500m a week. NHS staff duly joined the now-traditional public protests that mark a Trump visit. If Trump was ever an asset for Johnson, he’s now deemed a liability. The president sees something of himself in man he’s called “Britain Trump”, not least perhaps their at times disarming physical resemblance. But given British public attitudes to Trump, it’s prudent for Johnson to maintain distance during the last week of a tight election. Trump’s toxicity has the potential to poison Johnson’s hitherto effective campaign. So after much speculation as to whether they would meet – itself extraordinary – Johnson and Trump did, but, equally extraordinarily, there were no photographs of the host and his guest at that meeting at Number 10 or at a Buckingham Palace reception. The two were eventually photographed together arriving at The Grove, the venue for the NATO leaders summit in Watford. By contrast, Corbyn has wanted nothing more than the chance to be photographed challenging Trump on the NHS – though it emerged they did not meet at the palace. But not on NATO. On which they agree. A voter could be forgiven for being confused. (Martin Farr is Senior Lecturer in Modern and Contemporary British History, Newcastle University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

What happens when US presidents enter British elections

By Rainbow Murray and Robin Pettitt

If you live in a safe seat, don’t feel inspired by the choices on offer, and/or would rather spend December 12 doing your Christmas shopping, you might be considering not voting in the 2019 general election – then here are five reasons to change your mind.

1. Your vote does matter

The first and by far and away the most important reason to vote is that, regardless of what anyone might tell you, it matters. The ongoing saga of Brexit is very much a case in point. The way people voted in 2015 resulted in a majority Conservative Party government, which paved the way for the 2016 Brexit referendum. Regardless of whether you think that was a good thing or not, voting mattered.

In the referendum of 2016, a majority of those who voted, voted for Leave. Regardless of whether you think that was a good thing or not, voting mattered.

The way people voted in 2017 deprived Theresa May of a parliamentary majority – which meant the then prime minister was unable to get her deal through parliament, a problem inherited by her successor, Boris Johnson. Regardless of whether you think that was a good thing or not, voting mattered.

It is true that in many parts of the UK some parties utterly dominate. There are areas of the UK that have been represented by MPs from the same party since the 1800s. In areas where one party has a massive majority it may seem that voting will make little difference, which can be deeply frustrating. However, not voting is the one thing guaranteed to make no difference.

Even if voting will not affect the outcome of the result in an individual constituency, it will affect national vote shares for the parties. Parties that cannot win can still get their agendas taken seriously by the other parties if their vote share is strong. Part of the reason why the former prime minister, David Cameron, decided to call a referendum in the first place was the rise of UKIP as a political force. The newer party had no significant presence in parliament but had Cameron’s Conservatives running scared every time it increased its vote share.

In addition, national vote share is increasingly part of the political debate after elections and your vote can be part of that story, even if it doesn’t swing your constituency result. Again, voting matters.

2. Turn up to change the system

Even if you have no hope of your vote making a difference in your constituency, at least consider going to your local polling station and spoiling your ballot paper. This is not a pointless exercise. If thousands of voters in safe constituencies spoiled their ballot papers it would give ammunition to those who are campaigning to replace the UK’s antiquated electoral system with something that gives votes everywhere more weight. The number of spoiled ballots is recorded in each constituency.

3. Defending democracy

Having the right to vote cannot be taken for granted. Just as the right to vote can be obtained, so it can be lost. There are numerous examples of countries where democratic standards were undermined, sometimes fatally so.

The UK’s democracy is still seen as being in good health. However, the Windrush scandal, the government’s attempt to prorogue parliament to avoid debate, and the potential impact of Brexit on human rights shows that the freedoms we have now are not immutable. The most simple and basic thing anyone can do to keep democracy strong is to vote. Arguably, voting is not enough in itself to protect freedoms, but it is a necessary minimum.

4. Don’t vote, can’t moan 
 
Any complaints you may have about anything related to politics (and everything is related to politics) will ring rather hollow after December 12 if you do not do the absolute minimum to make a difference by voting. Quite apart from Brexit, the plans presented by the main parties in their manifestos offer radically different futures for the country.

Voting is the most fundamental way of expressing an opinion on what the parties are planning on doing if elected. Failing to do so makes any subsequent complaints about what the government is doing fairly hypocritical. Don’t vote? Can’t moan! Want to moan? Got to vote!

5. Paying respects 
 
Having a system of government where ordinary people have a say in how they are governed is not automatic. Indeed, it was not always so in the United Kingdom.

The extension of the right to vote in the UK was a long and hard struggle with very real human costs – as exemplified by the 18 killed and hundreds injured during the Peterloo Massacre just over 200 years when cavalry (yes, men, on horses, wielding swords) attacked protesters demanding a greater say in how parliament was put together. This atrocity, and the brutality experienced by those who fought for the right of women to vote remind us how controversial the right to vote really is. Voting is a way of paying respect to those who suffered and died to secure that vote.

And finally, one last reason to vote, if the above still aren’t good enough, is that if people didn’t turn out on election day, we would not have #dogsatpollingstations.

 
(Rainbow Murray is Professor of Politics, Queen Mary University of London; Robin Pettitt is Senior Lecturer in Comparative Politics, Kingston University) 
 
(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/five-reasons-to-vote-in-this-election-127666">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

By Rainbow Murray and Robin Pettitt If you live in a safe seat, don’t feel inspired by the choices on offer, and/or would rather spend December 12 doing your Christmas shopping, you might be considering not voting in the 2019 general election – then here are five reasons to change your mind.

By Rainbow Murray and Robin Pettitt If you live in a safe seat, don’t feel inspired by the choices on offer, and/or would rather spend December 12 doing your Christmas shopping, you might be considering not voting in the 2019 general election – then here are five reasons to change your mind. 1. Your vote does matter The first and by far and away the most important reason to vote is that, regardless of what anyone might tell you, it matters. The ongoing saga of Brexit is very much a case in point. The way people voted in 2015 resulted in a majority Conservative Party government, which paved the way for the 2016 Brexit referendum. Regardless of whether you think that was a good thing or not, voting mattered. In the referendum of 2016, a majority of those who voted, voted for Leave. Regardless of whether you think that was a good thing or not, voting mattered. The way people voted in 2017 deprived Theresa May of a parliamentary majority – which meant the then prime minister was unable to get her deal through parliament, a problem inherited by her successor, Boris Johnson. Regardless of whether you think that was a good thing or not, voting mattered. It is true that in many parts of the UK some parties utterly dominate. There are areas of the UK that have been represented by MPs from the same party since the 1800s. In areas where one party has a massive majority it may seem that voting will make little difference, which can be deeply frustrating. However, not voting is the one thing guaranteed to make no difference. Even if voting will not affect the outcome of the result in an individual constituency, it will affect national vote shares for the parties. Parties that cannot win can still get their agendas taken seriously by the other parties if their vote share is strong. Part of the reason why the former prime minister, David Cameron, decided to call a referendum in the first place was the rise of UKIP as a political force. The newer party had no significant presence in parliament but had Cameron’s Conservatives running scared every time it increased its vote share. In addition, national vote share is increasingly part of the political debate after elections and your vote can be part of that story, even if it doesn’t swing your constituency result. Again, voting matters. 2. Turn up to change the system Even if you have no hope of your vote making a difference in your constituency, at least consider going to your local polling station and spoiling your ballot paper. This is not a pointless exercise. If thousands of voters in safe constituencies spoiled their ballot papers it would give ammunition to those who are campaigning to replace the UK’s antiquated electoral system with something that gives votes everywhere more weight. The number of spoiled ballots is recorded in each constituency. 3. Defending democracy Having the right to vote cannot be taken for granted. Just as the right to vote can be obtained, so it can be lost. There are numerous examples of countries where democratic standards were undermined, sometimes fatally so. The UK’s democracy is still seen as being in good health. However, the Windrush scandal, the government’s attempt to prorogue parliament to avoid debate, and the potential impact of Brexit on human rights shows that the freedoms we have now are not immutable. The most simple and basic thing anyone can do to keep democracy strong is to vote. Arguably, voting is not enough in itself to protect freedoms, but it is a necessary minimum. 4. Don’t vote, can’t moan Any complaints you may have about anything related to politics (and everything is related to politics) will ring rather hollow after December 12 if you do not do the absolute minimum to make a difference by voting. Quite apart from Brexit, the plans presented by the main parties in their manifestos offer radically different futures for the country. Voting is the most fundamental way of expressing an opinion on what the parties are planning on doing if elected. Failing to do so makes any subsequent complaints about what the government is doing fairly hypocritical. Don’t vote? Can’t moan! Want to moan? Got to vote! 5. Paying respects Having a system of government where ordinary people have a say in how they are governed is not automatic. Indeed, it was not always so in the United Kingdom. The extension of the right to vote in the UK was a long and hard struggle with very real human costs – as exemplified by the 18 killed and hundreds injured during the Peterloo Massacre just over 200 years when cavalry (yes, men, on horses, wielding swords) attacked protesters demanding a greater say in how parliament was put together. This atrocity, and the brutality experienced by those who fought for the right of women to vote remind us how controversial the right to vote really is. Voting is a way of paying respect to those who suffered and died to secure that vote. And finally, one last reason to vote, if the above still aren’t good enough, is that if people didn’t turn out on election day, we would not have #dogsatpollingstations. (Rainbow Murray is Professor of Politics, Queen Mary University of London; Robin Pettitt is Senior Lecturer in Comparative Politics, Kingston University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

UK elections 2019: Five reasons to vote

By Chris Stafford

Of all the criticisms of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, of which there are many, one of the more prominent in recent times has been the party’s ambiguous stance on Brexit.

Corbyn would rather not spend all that much time talking about Brexit, preferring to stick to his strengths and discuss inequality, championing the needs of the many over those of the few. But the upcoming 2019 general election is set to focus heavily on the issue and all parties need a clear, credible policy platform if they want to attract voters.

Jeremy Corbyn was heavily criticised during and after the 2016 referendum for his lukewarm support for the Remain campaign, famously assessing his support for EU membership as a “Seven, seven-and-a-half out of ten”.

Historically, Corbyn has not been a supporter of EU membership, voting against continued membership in the 1975 referendum. But his reasons for this are very different to those offered by groups such as UKIP or the Conservatives.

While the Labour Party has been very pro-European in recent history, this was not always the case, and in the 1980s the party leadership was much more hostile towards Europe. During the New Labour years, MPs such as Corbyn were a relic of Labour’s past, ardent left-wingers who saw the EU as a capitalist club, opposed to the socialist roots of the Labour Party.

After pledging to respect the result of the 2016 referendum, the Labour Party adopted an ambiguous stance on Brexit for most of Theresa May’s time as prime minister. The strategy initially proved to be somewhat successful, with the party effectively sitting on the fence and letting the issue of Europe tear the Conservatives apart.

But it eventually became difficult to criticise the Conservatives’ handling of Brexit without actually offering a credible alternative. Voters started to want clear, decisive party positions on Brexit, as evidenced by the success of the Liberal Democrats and the Brexit Party at the 2019 European elections.

The new plan

In an attempt to appear more decisive on Brexit, and after significant internal debate, Labour is now presenting a Brexit policy. The plan is to go back to Europe and renegotiate the Brexit deal. This new agreement would then be put back to the British public in a referendum.

Labour’s Brexit deal would, if all goes to plan, see the UK maintain a close trading relationship with the EU, creating a customs union and staying in close alignment with the single market, allowing the UK to continue to trade with Europe without tariffs. But this would likely mean that the UK couldn’t negotiate its own trade deals with non-EU countries – something that the Conservatives’ current deal would allow by effectively cutting all trading links with Europe and leaving the single market entirely.

Labour claims that it would take about three months to negotiate this deal, with a referendum held within six months. Alongside the newly negotiated “credible leave option”, the referendum ballot would also include the option to remain as an EU member.

Although this is a much clearer position than the party has held for a while, the policy still amounts to sitting on the fence to a certain extent. It is an attempt to appeal to both Leave and Remain voters.

It is also unclear how successful it would be if implemented. Would the EU be willing to renegotiate the withdrawal deal again? Signs from the continent suggest that many of the EU27 just want the UK gone already, with Brexit taking up far too much of their time at the expense of other pressing issues. Brexit is, and always has been, just one of many problems for the continent to deal with.

Assuming the EU did agree to renegotiate the deal again, how much effort would they put into it if they thought the government would then actively campaign against it in a subsequent referendum? That is a possibility under Labour, which has not been particularly clear about what its official position would be in a fresh referendum. Again, the answer may depend on whether or not Europe wants the UK to stay.

(Chris Stafford is Doctoral Researcher, University of Nottingham) 
 
(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/labours-brexit-policy-explained-127380">original article</a>) 
&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

By Chris Stafford Of all the criticisms of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, of which there are many, one of the more prominent in recent times has been the party’s ambiguous stance on Brexit.

By Chris Stafford Of all the criticisms of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, of which there are many, one of the more prominent in recent times has been the party’s ambiguous stance on Brexit. Corbyn would rather not spend all that much time talking about Brexit, preferring to stick to his strengths and discuss inequality, championing the needs of the many over those of the few. But the upcoming 2019 general election is set to focus heavily on the issue and all parties need a clear, credible policy platform if they want to attract voters. Jeremy Corbyn was heavily criticised during and after the 2016 referendum for his lukewarm support for the Remain campaign, famously assessing his support for EU membership as a “Seven, seven-and-a-half out of ten”. Historically, Corbyn has not been a supporter of EU membership, voting against continued membership in the 1975 referendum. But his reasons for this are very different to those offered by groups such as UKIP or the Conservatives. While the Labour Party has been very pro-European in recent history, this was not always the case, and in the 1980s the party leadership was much more hostile towards Europe. During the New Labour years, MPs such as Corbyn were a relic of Labour’s past, ardent left-wingers who saw the EU as a capitalist club, opposed to the socialist roots of the Labour Party. After pledging to respect the result of the 2016 referendum, the Labour Party adopted an ambiguous stance on Brexit for most of Theresa May’s time as prime minister. The strategy initially proved to be somewhat successful, with the party effectively sitting on the fence and letting the issue of Europe tear the Conservatives apart. But it eventually became difficult to criticise the Conservatives’ handling of Brexit without actually offering a credible alternative. Voters started to want clear, decisive party positions on Brexit, as evidenced by the success of the Liberal Democrats and the Brexit Party at the 2019 European elections. The new plan In an attempt to appear more decisive on Brexit, and after significant internal debate, Labour is now presenting a Brexit policy. The plan is to go back to Europe and renegotiate the Brexit deal. This new agreement would then be put back to the British public in a referendum. Labour’s Brexit deal would, if all goes to plan, see the UK maintain a close trading relationship with the EU, creating a customs union and staying in close alignment with the single market, allowing the UK to continue to trade with Europe without tariffs. But this would likely mean that the UK couldn’t negotiate its own trade deals with non-EU countries – something that the Conservatives’ current deal would allow by effectively cutting all trading links with Europe and leaving the single market entirely. Labour claims that it would take about three months to negotiate this deal, with a referendum held within six months. Alongside the newly negotiated “credible leave option”, the referendum ballot would also include the option to remain as an EU member. Although this is a much clearer position than the party has held for a while, the policy still amounts to sitting on the fence to a certain extent. It is an attempt to appeal to both Leave and Remain voters. It is also unclear how successful it would be if implemented. Would the EU be willing to renegotiate the withdrawal deal again? Signs from the continent suggest that many of the EU27 just want the UK gone already, with Brexit taking up far too much of their time at the expense of other pressing issues. Brexit is, and always has been, just one of many problems for the continent to deal with. Assuming the EU did agree to renegotiate the deal again, how much effort would they put into it if they thought the government would then actively campaign against it in a subsequent referendum? That is a possibility under Labour, which has not been particularly clear about what its official position would be in a fresh referendum. Again, the answer may depend on whether or not Europe wants the UK to stay. (Chris Stafford is Doctoral Researcher, University of Nottingham) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Labour Party’s Brexit policy explained

By Simon Usherwood

Against seemingly all the odds, we have a new Brexit deal. As an apparent vindication of UK prime minister Boris Johnson’s strategy to ramp up the threat of a no-deal departure from the EU and to force concessions from Brussels, one would imagine that Number 10 is rather happy right now. But that happiness will be tempered with caution because some major issues lie ahead.

Negotiations in Brussels have produced legal texts on arrangements for Northern Ireland and on the political declaration, which outlines the broad outline of what the two sides want from their future relationship. These are the product of months of planning by the British government, so it’s reasonable to ask what has actually changed since former prime minister Theresa May struck her original deal.

Reading the text, the first impression is that there’s much more that hasn’t changed than has.

Northern Ireland

The protocol on Northern Ireland and Ireland has long been in the firing line. It proposes a backstop arrangement that would keep Northern Ireland in close alignment with the EU unless and until both UK and EU agreed to change that.

On that front, the introduction of a section on “democratic consent” is an important shift on the EU side. This provides a mechanism for the Northern Ireland Assembly to vote on whether to maintain the provisions of the protocol, with a requirement to have cross-community support. That means the UK is now no longer subject to the EU’s approval if it wants to end the backstop arrangement.

That said, a voting requirement to have majorities from both unionist and nationalist groupings makes it very hard to achieve – especially since the Northern Ireland Executive broke down several years ago and is still not in operation. While the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) might control unionist voting, it can only do the same with nationalists if it creates a much more benign and cooperative environment. And even if that does happen and arrangements are voted down by Stormont, there is still a long phasing-out period, so things cannot move too quickly.

From the EU’s perspective, this arrangement provides a degree of security, mainly because any decision to overturn the system is not solely in the hands of the UK – which has not been the most reliable partner of late.

Customs arrangements

The other big change is on customs arrangements. Instead of creating a temporary customs area for the whole of the UK, the revised Protocol makes Northern Ireland a part of the UK’s customs territory. Because that would imply border controls, a rather convoluted system of custom duty collection is set out.

In essence, the system collects duties from businesses, dependent upon where goods are coming from and going to, with the possibility of various exemptions that will be agreed down the line.

It’s a much more complex system than before, but it does allow Johnson to argue that the entire UK is leaving the EU’s customs union, allowing it to benefit from any new trade deals that might be concluded.

Meanwhile, the political declaration, the main change is that the UK now suggests it is looking for a much looser future relationship, based on a free trade agreement, rather than anything that might include participation in the EU’s single market or customs union.

Less is more? 
 
While these are all noteworthy, they do represent only a very small part of the totality of the withdrawal agreement, as agreed by May last November. The Protocol still kicks into effect at the end of a transition period and the effect is still that Northern Ireland is kept very close to EU’s regulatory standards for many years. The future relationship remains as aspirational as May’s plans – until such a document is negotiated and ratified, by some future British government, no one can be sure what it will look like.

Nor did this negotiation touch on citizens’ rights, financial liabilities, the power of the EU’s courts to issue definitive rulings on matters of dispute (an important matter for hard Brexit supporters in the Conservative Party) or the institutional arrangements for managing all of this. Even as Number 10 goes into its selling mode, those continuities from last year’s text will be present in many people’s minds.

The plan still seems to be for the government to present this deal to the UK parliament in a special Saturday sitting on October 19. We already know that the DUP has issues with the revised text because it places Northern Ireland in a different legal position to the rest of the UK, so winning that vote looks even harder than it already did. The government will hope that it can present the deal to MPs as the last, best hope for a Brexit settlement – but, with wobbles from the DUP, Johnson will struggle to get close to a majority.

Even if he does, the potential to keep that majority together for the subsequent passage of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill looks even less likely. And remember that, as things stand today, this text isn’t even signed off by the 27 EU member states – there’s now not really enough time for them to digest and approve something that moves them off their previous position.

In short, this might still fall apart for Johnson, just as it did for May. 
 
(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/boris-johnsons-brexit-deal-whats-in-it-and-how-is-it-different-to-theresa-mays-version-125446">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

(Simon Usherwood is Professor in Politics, University of Surrey)

By Simon Usherwood Against seemingly all the odds, we have a new Brexit deal. As an apparent vindication of UK prime minister Boris Johnson’s strategy to ramp up the threat of a no-deal departure from the EU and to force concessions from Brussels, one would imagine that Number 10 is rather happy right now.

By Simon Usherwood Against seemingly all the odds, we have a new Brexit deal. As an apparent vindication of UK prime minister Boris Johnson’s strategy to ramp up the threat of a no-deal departure from the EU and to force concessions from Brussels, one would imagine that Number 10 is rather happy right now. But that happiness will be tempered with caution because some major issues lie ahead. Negotiations in Brussels have produced legal texts on arrangements for Northern Ireland and on the political declaration, which outlines the broad outline of what the two sides want from their future relationship. These are the product of months of planning by the British government, so it’s reasonable to ask what has actually changed since former prime minister Theresa May struck her original deal. Reading the text, the first impression is that there’s much more that hasn’t changed than has. Northern Ireland The protocol on Northern Ireland and Ireland has long been in the firing line. It proposes a backstop arrangement that would keep Northern Ireland in close alignment with the EU unless and until both UK and EU agreed to change that. On that front, the introduction of a section on “democratic consent” is an important shift on the EU side. This provides a mechanism for the Northern Ireland Assembly to vote on whether to maintain the provisions of the protocol, with a requirement to have cross-community support. That means the UK is now no longer subject to the EU’s approval if it wants to end the backstop arrangement. That said, a voting requirement to have majorities from both unionist and nationalist groupings makes it very hard to achieve – especially since the Northern Ireland Executive broke down several years ago and is still not in operation. While the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) might control unionist voting, it can only do the same with nationalists if it creates a much more benign and cooperative environment. And even if that does happen and arrangements are voted down by Stormont, there is still a long phasing-out period, so things cannot move too quickly. From the EU’s perspective, this arrangement provides a degree of security, mainly because any decision to overturn the system is not solely in the hands of the UK – which has not been the most reliable partner of late. Customs arrangements The other big change is on customs arrangements. Instead of creating a temporary customs area for the whole of the UK, the revised Protocol makes Northern Ireland a part of the UK’s customs territory. Because that would imply border controls, a rather convoluted system of custom duty collection is set out. In essence, the system collects duties from businesses, dependent upon where goods are coming from and going to, with the possibility of various exemptions that will be agreed down the line. It’s a much more complex system than before, but it does allow Johnson to argue that the entire UK is leaving the EU’s customs union, allowing it to benefit from any new trade deals that might be concluded. Meanwhile, the political declaration, the main change is that the UK now suggests it is looking for a much looser future relationship, based on a free trade agreement, rather than anything that might include participation in the EU’s single market or customs union. Less is more? While these are all noteworthy, they do represent only a very small part of the totality of the withdrawal agreement, as agreed by May last November. The Protocol still kicks into effect at the end of a transition period and the effect is still that Northern Ireland is kept very close to EU’s regulatory standards for many years. The future relationship remains as aspirational as May’s plans – until such a document is negotiated and ratified, by some future British government, no one can be sure what it will look like. Nor did this negotiation touch on citizens’ rights, financial liabilities, the power of the EU’s courts to issue definitive rulings on matters of dispute (an important matter for hard Brexit supporters in the Conservative Party) or the institutional arrangements for managing all of this. Even as Number 10 goes into its selling mode, those continuities from last year’s text will be present in many people’s minds. The plan still seems to be for the government to present this deal to the UK parliament in a special Saturday sitting on October 19. We already know that the DUP has issues with the revised text because it places Northern Ireland in a different legal position to the rest of the UK, so winning that vote looks even harder than it already did. The government will hope that it can present the deal to MPs as the last, best hope for a Brexit settlement – but, with wobbles from the DUP, Johnson will struggle to get close to a majority. Even if he does, the potential to keep that majority together for the subsequent passage of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill looks even less likely. And remember that, as things stand today, this text isn’t even signed off by the 27 EU member states – there’s now not really enough time for them to digest and approve something that moves them off their previous position. In short, this might still fall apart for Johnson, just as it did for May. (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) (Simon Usherwood is Professor in Politics, University of Surrey)

Here's how Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal is different from Theresa May’s version?

By Simon Usherwood

If you’re looking to make sense of why Brexit is blocked, it’s worth considering that it has two basic dimensions. The first is the negotiation between the European Union and the UK on the terms for the latter leaving the former. The second is the negotiation – or, more often, the power plays – between the British government and the rest of the UK’s political system. If Theresa May’s premiership was focused on the first dimension, then Boris Johnson’s has shifted very much to the second.

As a brief reflection might demonstrate, neither approach has been particularly successful. The reason is that both, in their own ways, have assumed that if you’re able to secure a deal on one dimension, then the other will automatically snap into place. That misunderstanding has been especially evident since Johnson announced his more formal proposals for a new legal text on the Irish dimension of the withdrawal agreement.

In essence, the proposals sought to replace the Irish backstop, which was designed to ensure a permanent fall-back system would be in place after Brexit to preserve the Good Friday Agreement but provoked an insurmountable backlash against May’s original deal. Johnson instead proposed that Northern Ireland should continue to be aligned with the EU on regulations on goods and committed to discussing customs arrangements.

Number 10 has also suggested that the Northern Ireland Assembly should give its consent to the introductions of the new arrangements, and renew that consent every four years thereafter.

In so doing, Johnson was seeking to address a number of fundamental problems with May’s deal on the backstop. First, there had been opposition from Tory ranks about the maintenance of a customs relationship in the backstop, which would have covered the entire UK. This would have meant that the scope for concluding free trade deals with other parts of the world would be limited, since the UK would be bound by the EU’s rules.

Second, and more critically, the backstop was specifically designed to be “all-weather” – that is, it would kick in at any point that there wasn’t an alternative arrangement (agreed by both the UK and EU) in place. In practice, that meant once it was activated, the UK would not be able to deactivate it without the EU’s approval. Such a potential lock on British action raised very many hackles.

So Johnson’s team floated this alternative, taking a considerable amount of care to craft a document that could get the buy-in of the harder end of the Conservative party, the DUP and even some of the non-aligned rebels in parliament.

And, indeed, various figures have announced that they could live with the deal –maybe not a robust majority of MPs, but certainly something that reached parts May’s deal never had.

At this point, the price of that buy-in became clear: the EU is not minded to go for it. From its perspective, there has been very little to commend Johnson’s text. Crucially, the proposal is largely a promise to talk, but with nothing said about what happens if talks are inconclusive. This runs entirely contrary to the purpose of the original backstop.

This is only amplified by the intention to give Stormont a vote on the arrangements. Quite apart from the absence of a functioning Northern Irish executive that might manage the discussions, the mechanism would raise the prospect of recurring debates about the durability of any provisions that were to be agreed. These problems are self-evident to those involved in the negotiations, which is a key reason in explaining why they didn’t get taken through the draft text agreed by May at the end of last year.

So why advance them now? The generous interpretation would be that Johnson hoped that the log-rolling of a majority in parliament would be enough to move the EU: the process has been stuck for nearly a year now and approval of the current text by the Commons looks all but impossible (remember it has voted against it explicitly on three occasions already), so why not go with a new text that would win the backing of MPs? There’s something to this, especially if the rumours of an EU concession to allow some role for Stormont turn out to be accurate.

But the broad thrust from Brussels and other EU capitals has been much more negative, not at all aided by the very negative briefings coming from Number 10. This points to a less generous view of Johnson’s approach. The looming general election – held back only by the need for an extension to Article 50 – has created an incentive for him to show that he has tried to secure a deal, only for it to be rejected by others: If returned to power, then he will be able to finally escape the constraints put on him, by parliament and by the EU, and make Brexit happen.

To put that back into our dimensions, it’s a renewed focus on the domestic competition. If it comes off, Johnson will find that the European dimension is still there, for any future deal he might want to do. And at that point, his recent actions might very well come back to haunt him.

(Simon Usherwood is Professor in Politics, University of Surrey)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-brexit-talks-have-stalled-over-boris-johnsons-plans-for-the-irish-border-125018">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Simon Usherwood If you’re looking to make sense of why Brexit is blocked, it’s worth considering that it has two basic dimensions. The first is the negotiation between the European Union and the UK on the terms for the latter leaving the former.

By Simon Usherwood If you’re looking to make sense of why Brexit is blocked, it’s worth considering that it has two basic dimensions. The first is the negotiation between the European Union and the UK on the terms for the latter leaving the former. The second is the negotiation – or, more often, the power plays – between the British government and the rest of the UK’s political system. If Theresa May’s premiership was focused on the first dimension, then Boris Johnson’s has shifted very much to the second. As a brief reflection might demonstrate, neither approach has been particularly successful. The reason is that both, in their own ways, have assumed that if you’re able to secure a deal on one dimension, then the other will automatically snap into place. That misunderstanding has been especially evident since Johnson announced his more formal proposals for a new legal text on the Irish dimension of the withdrawal agreement. In essence, the proposals sought to replace the Irish backstop, which was designed to ensure a permanent fall-back system would be in place after Brexit to preserve the Good Friday Agreement but provoked an insurmountable backlash against May’s original deal. Johnson instead proposed that Northern Ireland should continue to be aligned with the EU on regulations on goods and committed to discussing customs arrangements. Number 10 has also suggested that the Northern Ireland Assembly should give its consent to the introductions of the new arrangements, and renew that consent every four years thereafter. In so doing, Johnson was seeking to address a number of fundamental problems with May’s deal on the backstop. First, there had been opposition from Tory ranks about the maintenance of a customs relationship in the backstop, which would have covered the entire UK. This would have meant that the scope for concluding free trade deals with other parts of the world would be limited, since the UK would be bound by the EU’s rules. Second, and more critically, the backstop was specifically designed to be “all-weather” – that is, it would kick in at any point that there wasn’t an alternative arrangement (agreed by both the UK and EU) in place. In practice, that meant once it was activated, the UK would not be able to deactivate it without the EU’s approval. Such a potential lock on British action raised very many hackles. So Johnson’s team floated this alternative, taking a considerable amount of care to craft a document that could get the buy-in of the harder end of the Conservative party, the DUP and even some of the non-aligned rebels in parliament. And, indeed, various figures have announced that they could live with the deal –maybe not a robust majority of MPs, but certainly something that reached parts May’s deal never had. At this point, the price of that buy-in became clear: the EU is not minded to go for it. From its perspective, there has been very little to commend Johnson’s text. Crucially, the proposal is largely a promise to talk, but with nothing said about what happens if talks are inconclusive. This runs entirely contrary to the purpose of the original backstop. This is only amplified by the intention to give Stormont a vote on the arrangements. Quite apart from the absence of a functioning Northern Irish executive that might manage the discussions, the mechanism would raise the prospect of recurring debates about the durability of any provisions that were to be agreed. These problems are self-evident to those involved in the negotiations, which is a key reason in explaining why they didn’t get taken through the draft text agreed by May at the end of last year. So why advance them now? The generous interpretation would be that Johnson hoped that the log-rolling of a majority in parliament would be enough to move the EU: the process has been stuck for nearly a year now and approval of the current text by the Commons looks all but impossible (remember it has voted against it explicitly on three occasions already), so why not go with a new text that would win the backing of MPs? There’s something to this, especially if the rumours of an EU concession to allow some role for Stormont turn out to be accurate. But the broad thrust from Brussels and other EU capitals has been much more negative, not at all aided by the very negative briefings coming from Number 10. This points to a less generous view of Johnson’s approach. The looming general election – held back only by the need for an extension to Article 50 – has created an incentive for him to show that he has tried to secure a deal, only for it to be rejected by others: If returned to power, then he will be able to finally escape the constraints put on him, by parliament and by the EU, and make Brexit happen. To put that back into our dimensions, it’s a renewed focus on the domestic competition. If it comes off, Johnson will find that the European dimension is still there, for any future deal he might want to do. And at that point, his recent actions might very well come back to haunt him. (Simon Usherwood is Professor in Politics, University of Surrey) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Why Brexit talks have stalled over Boris Johnson’s plans for the Irish border

US President Donald&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;threw his weight Tuesday behind&nbsp;Boris&nbsp;Johnson's plan to exit the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-supreme-court-ruling-could-throw-boris-johnsons-brexit-plan-into-more-disarray-251621">European Union</a> as the British leader suffered a major setback in court.

Trump said it took a man such as Johnson to get Brexit done and that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-pm-vows-to-pursue-brexit-plan-despite-supreme-court-blow-251822">Brexit had to be done</a>.

"It takes a man like this to get it done,"&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;said of Johnson, adding, "I think he is going to get it done."

"It would be a terrible thing to do it any other way," Trump added as the&nbsp;pair met on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.&nbsp;

Trump also dismissed&nbsp;British opposition demands that Johnson should resign after the&nbsp;Supreme Court ruled he had acted unlawfully.

Asked by reporters about calls for Johnson to resign, Trump said, "I'll tell you, I know him well, he’s not going anywhere."

Watch: Trouble follows Boris Johnson, wherever he goes!

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-trouble-follows-boris-johnson-wherever-he-goes-250683/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Johnson on Tuesday vowed to press ahead with his plan for Brexit on October 31, despite a momentous Supreme Court ruling that found his decision to suspend parliament unlawful.

<meta name="uuid" content="uuidDg2f112Pi0um" /><meta charset="utf-8" />

The American president told reporters that he had "no reaction" when he heard that Britain's highest court had ruled against Johnson.

"He's a professional. It's just another day in the office,"&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;said of his British counterpart.

The ruling came after a series of defeats in parliament that had curbed Johnson's plans to leave the EU at the end of next month even without a divorce deal with Brussels.

Three years after the 2016 Brexit referendum, Johnson has insisted Britain must leave the EU without further delays, but lawmakers fear the disruptive impact of exiting without a deal with Brussels.

Johnson told reporters in New York that he "strongly disagreed" with the court decision but said he would respect it.

He also renewed his calls for Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of Britain's main opposition Labour party, to back a general election.

Corbyn said Johnson should resign after the court judgement.

US President Donald Trump threw his weight Tuesday behind Boris Johnson's plan to exit the European Union as the British leader suffered a major setback in court.

US President Donald Trump threw his weight Tuesday behind Boris Johnson's plan to exit the European Union as the British leader suffered a major setback in court. Trump said it took a man such as Johnson to get Brexit done and that Brexit had to be done. "It takes a man like this to get it done," Trump said of Johnson, adding, "I think he is going to get it done." "It would be a terrible thing to do it any other way," Trump added as the pair met on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. Trump also dismissed British opposition demands that Johnson should resign after the Supreme Court ruled he had acted unlawfully. Asked by reporters about calls for Johnson to resign, Trump said, "I'll tell you, I know him well, he’s not going anywhere." Watch: Trouble follows Boris Johnson, wherever he goes! × Johnson on Tuesday vowed to press ahead with his plan for Brexit on October 31, despite a momentous Supreme Court ruling that found his decision to suspend parliament unlawful. The American president told reporters that he had "no reaction" when he heard that Britain's highest court had ruled against Johnson. "He's a professional. It's just another day in the office," Trump said of his British counterpart. The ruling came after a series of defeats in parliament that had curbed Johnson's plans to leave the EU at the end of next month even without a divorce deal with Brussels. Three years after the 2016 Brexit referendum, Johnson has insisted Britain must leave the EU without further delays, but lawmakers fear the disruptive impact of exiting without a deal with Brussels. Johnson told reporters in New York that he "strongly disagreed" with the court decision but said he would respect it. He also renewed his calls for Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of Britain's main opposition Labour party, to back a general election. Corbyn said Johnson should resign after the court judgement.

Should PM Boris Johnson resign? Donald Trump says, 'he's not going anywhere'

By Matthew Flinders

It’s fairly clear that the tectonic plates of the British constitution are shifting. After a grating and grinding battle between the legislature and the constitution, the main friction point moved to the judicial sphere.

And the UK Supreme Court has ruled that the process by which prime minister prorogued parliament for five weeks in the run-up the October 31 date when Brexit is now due was not lawful. What happens now in terms of process is unclear but what appears to have been almost completely overlooked in the generally turgid and jargon-rich commentaries that have surrounded the case is that the result is unlikely to matter.

In fact, despite losing this specific trial of strength, Johnson may still come out the winner.

The goal of the teams taking on the government in court was to stop executive overreach. They argued that the government had devised a lengthy prorogation to limit the time available for parliament to hold the government to account over Brexit ahead of the October 31 deadline. The government insisted that the break was needed to organise a new parliamentary session. The courts have decided this was not the case.

But judicial bravery in highly contested constitutional waters may have the unintended consequence of delivering a major “Boris boost” in terms of public support. Whether through serendipity or strategy (probably the former) the prime minister has created a win-win situation that nobody seems to have noticed.

The Supreme Court upheld campaigner Gina Miller’s appeal and overturned a ruling by the English High Court that suspending parliament was “not a matter” for the judiciary.

In so doing, the court is, in effect, siding with the highest court in Scotland, which ruled earlier this month that the prorogation of parliament was unlawful as “it had the purpose of stymieing parliament”.

This decision is certain to spark the political equivalent of a volcanic eruption with claims and counter-claims of judicial activism and political incompetence. Academics will undoubtedly scuttle off to the library in an attempt to somehow reconcile the Supreme Court’s decision with legal scholar JAG Griffith’s classic account of “the political constitution” in the United Kingdom (Modern Law Review, 1979 and still well worth reading).

In reality, such matters are relatively simple. The court’s decision is constitutionally legitimate on the basis that it was upholding the basic tenet of parliamentary sovereignty. Far from undermining the political constitution, the Supreme Court would from this position be protecting it, while retaining a politically subservient position.

But what no one seems to have considered is that Johnson is an explicitly populist politician. He will live to whiff-whaff another day. His whole approach to gaining the keys to No.10 has revolved around constantly responding to – and to some extent amplifying – the populist signal, not least over Brexit. In this context, a Supreme Court defeat risks simply playing into Johnson’s gameplan. It will not stop Brexit. But for Johnson and, especially for his shady apparatchiks, it will be yet another example of “them” (that is, the elite, the experts, the untouchables that wield power without responsibility) against “us” (the Great British public).

The rules of political engagement have already been altered almost beyond recognition, and Johnson’s entire brand is based on being an unconventional politician.

The great risk of the Supreme Court ruling is that it will add fuel to a populist fire that is already raging about the need for a strong leader. Indeed, one of the few similarities between all the different manifestations of populism that have emerged around the world over the past decade is the existence of a charismatic and strong leader who can mobilise the masses and manipulate how dominant issues are framed. In the UK it is Johnson who seems to be staking the greatest claim to this role – and his popularity amongst Conservative Party members provides a powerful platform.

Britain’s threadbare constitutional framework makes it particularly vulnerable to the wrath of a strong leader. Where other countries have adopted a codified constitution, clear rules of engagement and an explicit role for the courts in curbing executive power, the British constitution operates through what the eminent constitutional historian Peter Hennessy has called “the good chaps theory of government”, which presumes that all politicians will exercise a high degree of self-restraint, respecting the unwritten rules of the constitution.

What’s worrying is that the words “Boris Johnson” and “self-restraint” have rarely – if ever – been used in the same sentence. He is not a man to play by the rules and the power of populism appears far too tempting. This is reflected in his refusal to rule out simply suspending parliament again. This tendency to pander to populism is exactly why a judicial loss risks boosting rather than wounding the prime minister.

(Matthew Flinders is Founding Director of the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics, University of Sheffield)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the<a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-boris-johnson-defeated-by-uk-supreme-court-but-he-could-still-emerge-as-a-winner-123819"> original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Matthew Flinders It’s fairly clear that the tectonic plates of the British constitution are shifting. After a grating and grinding battle between the legislature and the constitution, the main friction point moved to the judicial sphere.

By Matthew Flinders It’s fairly clear that the tectonic plates of the British constitution are shifting. After a grating and grinding battle between the legislature and the constitution, the main friction point moved to the judicial sphere. And the UK Supreme Court has ruled that the process by which prime minister prorogued parliament for five weeks in the run-up the October 31 date when Brexit is now due was not lawful. What happens now in terms of process is unclear but what appears to have been almost completely overlooked in the generally turgid and jargon-rich commentaries that have surrounded the case is that the result is unlikely to matter. In fact, despite losing this specific trial of strength, Johnson may still come out the winner. The goal of the teams taking on the government in court was to stop executive overreach. They argued that the government had devised a lengthy prorogation to limit the time available for parliament to hold the government to account over Brexit ahead of the October 31 deadline. The government insisted that the break was needed to organise a new parliamentary session. The courts have decided this was not the case. But judicial bravery in highly contested constitutional waters may have the unintended consequence of delivering a major “Boris boost” in terms of public support. Whether through serendipity or strategy (probably the former) the prime minister has created a win-win situation that nobody seems to have noticed. The Supreme Court upheld campaigner Gina Miller’s appeal and overturned a ruling by the English High Court that suspending parliament was “not a matter” for the judiciary. In so doing, the court is, in effect, siding with the highest court in Scotland, which ruled earlier this month that the prorogation of parliament was unlawful as “it had the purpose of stymieing parliament”. This decision is certain to spark the political equivalent of a volcanic eruption with claims and counter-claims of judicial activism and political incompetence. Academics will undoubtedly scuttle off to the library in an attempt to somehow reconcile the Supreme Court’s decision with legal scholar JAG Griffith’s classic account of “the political constitution” in the United Kingdom (Modern Law Review, 1979 and still well worth reading). In reality, such matters are relatively simple. The court’s decision is constitutionally legitimate on the basis that it was upholding the basic tenet of parliamentary sovereignty. Far from undermining the political constitution, the Supreme Court would from this position be protecting it, while retaining a politically subservient position. But what no one seems to have considered is that Johnson is an explicitly populist politician. He will live to whiff-whaff another day. His whole approach to gaining the keys to No.10 has revolved around constantly responding to – and to some extent amplifying – the populist signal, not least over Brexit. In this context, a Supreme Court defeat risks simply playing into Johnson’s gameplan. It will not stop Brexit. But for Johnson and, especially for his shady apparatchiks, it will be yet another example of “them” (that is, the elite, the experts, the untouchables that wield power without responsibility) against “us” (the Great British public). The rules of political engagement have already been altered almost beyond recognition, and Johnson’s entire brand is based on being an unconventional politician. The great risk of the Supreme Court ruling is that it will add fuel to a populist fire that is already raging about the need for a strong leader. Indeed, one of the few similarities between all the different manifestations of populism that have emerged around the world over the past decade is the existence of a charismatic and strong leader who can mobilise the masses and manipulate how dominant issues are framed. In the UK it is Johnson who seems to be staking the greatest claim to this role – and his popularity amongst Conservative Party members provides a powerful platform. Britain’s threadbare constitutional framework makes it particularly vulnerable to the wrath of a strong leader. Where other countries have adopted a codified constitution, clear rules of engagement and an explicit role for the courts in curbing executive power, the British constitution operates through what the eminent constitutional historian Peter Hennessy has called “the good chaps theory of government”, which presumes that all politicians will exercise a high degree of self-restraint, respecting the unwritten rules of the constitution. What’s worrying is that the words “Boris Johnson” and “self-restraint” have rarely – if ever – been used in the same sentence. He is not a man to play by the rules and the power of populism appears far too tempting. This is reflected in his refusal to rule out simply suspending parliament again. This tendency to pander to populism is exactly why a judicial loss risks boosting rather than wounding the prime minister. (Matthew Flinders is Founding Director of the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics, University of Sheffield) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Brexit row: Boris Johnson defeated by UK Supreme Court – but he could still emerge as a winner

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's younger brother, Jo, has resigned as a junior minister and said he would also step down as a lawmaker, citing a conflict between family loyalty and the national interest.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's younger brother, Jo, has resigned as a junior minister and said he would also step down as a lawmaker, citing a conflict between family loyalty and the national interest. His surprise resignation comes days after the prime minister expelled 21 Conservative lawmakers from the party for failing to back his Brexit strategy, including Winston Churchill's grandson and a former finance minister. Since taking office in July, Boris Johnson has tried to corral the Conservative Party, which is deeply divided over Brexit, behind his strategy of leaving the European Union on Oct. 31, with or without a deal. Jo Johnson, 47, had previously expressed backing for a second referendum on whether Britain should leave the EU, but accepted a job as a junior minister in the business and education departments when his brother became prime minister. "It’s been an honour to represent Orpington for 9 years & to serve as a minister under three PMs (Prime Ministers)," Jo Johnson said on Twitter. "In recent weeks I’ve been torn between family loyalty and the national interest - it’s an unresolvable tension & time for others to take on my roles as MP (Member of Parliament) & Minister," he said. It was not immediately clear whether he would resign as a Member of Parliament immediately, or simply not stand for re-election. He had been an MP for the Orpington constituency in Kent, south east England, since 2010, serving in several ministerial roles. Boris Johnson's "do or die" Brexit strategy, and his hardline approach to enforcing it, is causing a realignment in the ruling party, with several senior, more pro-European members announcing they will not seek re-election. The Johnson family itself is notoriously split over Brexit with his sister Rachel having represented different parties opposed to Brexit, and his father Stanley being a committed europhile and former European Commission official. It is also not the first time Jo Johnson, a former Financial Times journalist and a much less flamboyant character than his brother, has caught the government by surprise with a resignation notice. Last year, he quit then-prime minister Theresa May's government, calling in a withering critique for another referendum to avoid her Brexit plans unleashing Britain's greatest crisis since World War Two.

UK PM Johnson's brother, Jo, resigns, citing family vs national interest conflict

By Matthew Cole

Westminster is alive with speculation about an autumn general election, with advisers’ leave cancelled and the Treasury’s wallet open. But the last prime minister learned to her cost that those who start the campaign do not always determine its course.

Boris Johnson has not formally announced any such plan, but it is being heavily trailed. A general election could take place before, but in practice more likely after, a no-deal Brexit at the end of October. Johnson intends for the campaign to be fought on the theme of “the people versus the politicians”. He aims to present himself as the champion of popular opinion, as expressed in the 2016 referendum against a patronising and detached establishment. That appears to mean parliament, the courts and the media, all of whom, his team argues, are determined to frustrate the implementation of the 2016 EU referendum result.

This is a high-stakes strategy for which the current evidence looks good, but the historical precedents are more mixed.

Public opinion, as demonstrated in elections and polls, seems static since 2016. The nation is evenly divided between Leavers and Remainers, though now Remainers are divided between those resigned to defeat and those determined to seek a new referendum, and Leavers are split over the type of new relationship with the EU they would prefer.

Johnson hopes to unite Leavers by marginalising the Brexit Party. He also knows that Remain opinion is divided between Labour, the Liberal Democrats and other opposition parties. This could grant him a parliamentary majority, even with significantly less than half the vote (bear in mind, Tony Blair won a majority of 60 on 35% of the vote in 2005).

There are, however, serious problems here. One is Johnson himself. He is untested electorally at national level, and his initial bounce in the polls is no better than those enjoyed by Theresa May or Labour’s Gordon Brown when they took office. Both of these, of course, subsequently led their parties in disastrous election campaigns.

Johnson’s credentials as a man of the people are slim. He has been a politician for most of his adult life and spent his childhood at the school which has been the nursery of 20 prime ministers. Even before starting at that school, he was declaring his ambition to be “World King”. Boris is the consummate politician – he is an outsider only to everyday British life.

Johnson’s weaknesses in public and private life – his conduct as a member of the Bullingdon Club, various affairs, his failed multi-million pound Garden Bridge project in London, and the Nazanin Zaghari Ratcliffe gaffe – did not dent support amongst his admirers before his recent promotion. But as premier he may lack the consensus-building skills to resolve Brexit by reaching to a wider audience in a potentially volatile economic environment.

The dangers of division 
The history of populist, binary confrontational election campaigns in British politics also offers as much discouragement as hope to the prime minister.

In 1910, David Lloyd George’s Liberals ran a “peers versus the people” campaign in an attempt to pass a radical “people’s budget” which taxed the super-rich to pay for welfare benefits for the old, unemployed and sick. He hoped to paint the House of Lords as self-interested for blocking his budget, while they claimed they were exercising their right to veto a change in the role of the state for which Lloyd George had, in their view, no mandate.

The gamble ended in the Liberals losing their three-figure majority despite two elections in a year. A parliamentary stalemate eventually had to be resolved by the support of Irish MPs, and the Liberals never again governed alone.

Other campaigns have prompted more potent counter-claims or misread the public mood. In 1945 Churchill’s “Help him Finish the Job” slogan, referring to his war record, was successfully answered by Labour’s “Help THEM finish their job!” – a slogan used on images of servicemen looking to the future and the business of reconstruction.

And the Conservatives’ “New Labour, New Danger” campaign of 1997 was suspended because focus groups showed the public did not understand what was “new” about the threat posed by Blair. John Major also withdrew a Conservative party political broadcast depicting Blair in a Faust-like role with Peter Mandelson as Mephistopheles, saying “it would fail and it would deserve to fail”.

The deepest danger to Johnson’s proposed slogan is that “the people vs. the politicians” could easily be read as “the people vs. parliament”. The UK is not a Trump-style system of presidential rule, but an embedded parliamentary democracy, and voters – with a national memory going back to 1910 and even to the civil war – may not back him in enough numbers in such a fight. It was, after all, to protect the rights of parliament that many voted Leave.

It may be just over 390 years since Charles I’s arrogance towards parliament - dismissing it when it refused to accept his policies - proved fatal. Johnson might yet be sloganised not as the man of the people – but as “King Boris”. Perhaps the prime minister should be careful what he wishes for.

(Matthew Cole is Teaching Fellow, Department of History, University of Birmingham)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-anyone-really-going-to-buy-boris-johnsons-people-vs-the-politicians-election-campaign-121644">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Matthew Cole Westminster is alive with speculation about an autumn general election, with advisers’ leave cancelled and the Treasury’s wallet open. But the last prime minister learned to her cost that those who start the campaign do not always determine its course.

By Matthew Cole Westminster is alive with speculation about an autumn general election, with advisers’ leave cancelled and the Treasury’s wallet open. But the last prime minister learned to her cost that those who start the campaign do not always determine its course. Boris Johnson has not formally announced any such plan, but it is being heavily trailed. A general election could take place before, but in practice more likely after, a no-deal Brexit at the end of October. Johnson intends for the campaign to be fought on the theme of “the people versus the politicians”. He aims to present himself as the champion of popular opinion, as expressed in the 2016 referendum against a patronising and detached establishment. That appears to mean parliament, the courts and the media, all of whom, his team argues, are determined to frustrate the implementation of the 2016 EU referendum result. This is a high-stakes strategy for which the current evidence looks good, but the historical precedents are more mixed. Public opinion, as demonstrated in elections and polls, seems static since 2016. The nation is evenly divided between Leavers and Remainers, though now Remainers are divided between those resigned to defeat and those determined to seek a new referendum, and Leavers are split over the type of new relationship with the EU they would prefer. Johnson hopes to unite Leavers by marginalising the Brexit Party. He also knows that Remain opinion is divided between Labour, the Liberal Democrats and other opposition parties. This could grant him a parliamentary majority, even with significantly less than half the vote (bear in mind, Tony Blair won a majority of 60 on 35% of the vote in 2005). There are, however, serious problems here. One is Johnson himself. He is untested electorally at national level, and his initial bounce in the polls is no better than those enjoyed by Theresa May or Labour’s Gordon Brown when they took office. Both of these, of course, subsequently led their parties in disastrous election campaigns. Johnson’s credentials as a man of the people are slim. He has been a politician for most of his adult life and spent his childhood at the school which has been the nursery of 20 prime ministers. Even before starting at that school, he was declaring his ambition to be “World King”. Boris is the consummate politician – he is an outsider only to everyday British life. Johnson’s weaknesses in public and private life – his conduct as a member of the Bullingdon Club, various affairs, his failed multi-million pound Garden Bridge project in London, and the Nazanin Zaghari Ratcliffe gaffe – did not dent support amongst his admirers before his recent promotion. But as premier he may lack the consensus-building skills to resolve Brexit by reaching to a wider audience in a potentially volatile economic environment. The dangers of division The history of populist, binary confrontational election campaigns in British politics also offers as much discouragement as hope to the prime minister. In 1910, David Lloyd George’s Liberals ran a “peers versus the people” campaign in an attempt to pass a radical “people’s budget” which taxed the super-rich to pay for welfare benefits for the old, unemployed and sick. He hoped to paint the House of Lords as self-interested for blocking his budget, while they claimed they were exercising their right to veto a change in the role of the state for which Lloyd George had, in their view, no mandate. The gamble ended in the Liberals losing their three-figure majority despite two elections in a year. A parliamentary stalemate eventually had to be resolved by the support of Irish MPs, and the Liberals never again governed alone. Other campaigns have prompted more potent counter-claims or misread the public mood. In 1945 Churchill’s “Help him Finish the Job” slogan, referring to his war record, was successfully answered by Labour’s “Help THEM finish their job!” – a slogan used on images of servicemen looking to the future and the business of reconstruction. And the Conservatives’ “New Labour, New Danger” campaign of 1997 was suspended because focus groups showed the public did not understand what was “new” about the threat posed by Blair. John Major also withdrew a Conservative party political broadcast depicting Blair in a Faust-like role with Peter Mandelson as Mephistopheles, saying “it would fail and it would deserve to fail”. The deepest danger to Johnson’s proposed slogan is that “the people vs. the politicians” could easily be read as “the people vs. parliament”. The UK is not a Trump-style system of presidential rule, but an embedded parliamentary democracy, and voters – with a national memory going back to 1910 and even to the civil war – may not back him in enough numbers in such a fight. It was, after all, to protect the rights of parliament that many voted Leave. It may be just over 390 years since Charles I’s arrogance towards parliament - dismissing it when it refused to accept his policies - proved fatal. Johnson might yet be sloganised not as the man of the people – but as “King Boris”. Perhaps the prime minister should be careful what he wishes for. (Matthew Cole is Teaching Fellow, Department of History, University of Birmingham) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Is anyone really going to buy Boris Johnson’s ‘people vs politicians’ election campaign?

By Timothy Oliver

As Boris Johnson begins his term as British prime minister, he takes charge of a country facing a series of overlapping crises. Alongside the constitutional and political crises provoked by the Brexit process, are wider social and economic problems of homelessness and poor productivity. But one of the most significant challenges he faces is the UK’s current identity crisis.

Countries, like people, have identities, and that’s remained true of Britain since the EU referendum of 2016, regardless of the divisions that have hardened since.

Precisely identifying what a country’s identity is can be a difficult process, but Britain certainly imagines itself to be a major international player, focused on upholding the rules-based international order. Under that overarching identity, there are a host of other identities at play – some of them longstanding, but two of significant importance that have only emerged since that referendum: Leave, and Remain.

Research on Brexit identities published by the UK in a Changing Europe research group in January 2019, found that while Remain as an identity appeared later than Leave during the referendum campaign, they are now roughly of equal strength.

Roughly equal numbers of people adhere to both Remain and Leave identities, with about equivalent strength. These identities are also more powerful than other existing political identities, such as party identity. While one in five British people don’t report a party identity, only one in 16 doesn’t report either a Remain or Leave identity.

The electorate are therefore broadly divided between two powerful identity blocs, of roughly equal size. As we saw in the European parliamentary elections, they are strongly polarised – the two parties that finished top of that ballot, the Brexit Party and the Liberal Democrats, represent the clearest articulation of each side of this divide.

These identities are deeply and sincerely held on both sides. They are defined in part by a rejection of the other identity, but also by what positive vision they hold for the future. This poses a significant challenge for politicians and civil servants seeking to lead the UK through the process of leaving the EU, and through a host of related policy issues around trade, immigration, and so on.

The polarisation between Leave and Remain is often commented on in dark tones. Many have said that the UK is irreparably divided and therefore dysfunctional to the point of impeding the ability of anyone party to govern it effectively.

Others claim that the referendum and then Brexit itself created and then embedded unbridgeable divides between these two large groups of voters. This gap will be near impossible to surmount, particularly as research shows these voters interpret the same economic data differently.

Looking for Common Ground 
 
But there is also reason to believe that some common ground can be found here. Both sides do hold a set of common beliefs. Both, for example, have extolled the virtues of openness. For Leavers, Britain’s membership of the EU was a barrier to being a globally connected and accessible country, for Remainers it was a means to facilitate that.

Both sides have also argued that Britain is an important country in global terms. While Remainers say this is, in part, due to membership of the EU which serves to amplify Britain’s voice in the world, Leavers say it’s despite the country being inside the union, and that Britain’s importance may even be enhanced by leaving. The commonalities here reflect elements of the overarching identities such as Britishness that cross both groups.

The downside is that these concepts might not be firm bases upon which to bring the country together. This can play out in two ways. Either neither side will recognise the other as truly sharing the value that they proclaim. Openness is a good example here. Both sides proclaim that they value openness, but that the other is in favour of being closed off from the world – either because they seek to detach the UK from the EU, or because they seek to keep the UK inside the club.

The other possibility is that, when a common ground issue is used to try and build a consensus, it is co-opted by one side or another, and so the bridge to common ground is lost.

Either way, British politicians will need to try and reunite the country. Indeed, the newly appointed prime minister made it the second point of his campaign list – but only after delivering Brexit. Electorally, it will be difficult for him, or any party leader, to get a majority in a general election in a country that is so divided on what has become such a central issue.

When it comes to building public support for policies to tackle the myriad crises facing Britain – from immigration policy to regional devolution – the same problem persists: policies can be perceived radically differently by the two identity groups. Seeking to bridge that gap will be hard.

The way forward should centre on speaking to the common ground that does exist, but also spending more time discussing trade offs and compromise. Johnson does not appear to have adopted this strategy – the immediate reaction to his government appointments has been to colour it as a more, not less, divisive government, and his rhetoric on Brexit has not shown much sign of compromise.

Public figures from both sides of the Leave and Remain divide will have to discover more overt enthusiasm for compromising if they want to draw the venom out of the Brexit identity clash. Otherwise, governing the UK will continue to be far more challenging that it was before 2016 for some time to come. 
 
(Timothy Oliver is Lecturer in British Politics and Public Policy, University of Manchester)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/boris-johnson-now-leads-a-country-mired-in-a-brexit-identity-crisis-heres-how-he-could-reunite-it-114458">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

By Timothy Oliver As Boris Johnson begins his term as British prime minister, he takes charge of a country facing a series of overlapping crises. Alongside the constitutional and political crises provoked by the Brexit process, are wider social and economic problems of homelessness and poor productivity.

By Timothy Oliver As Boris Johnson begins his term as British prime minister, he takes charge of a country facing a series of overlapping crises. Alongside the constitutional and political crises provoked by the Brexit process, are wider social and economic problems of homelessness and poor productivity. But one of the most significant challenges he faces is the UK’s current identity crisis. Countries, like people, have identities, and that’s remained true of Britain since the EU referendum of 2016, regardless of the divisions that have hardened since. Precisely identifying what a country’s identity is can be a difficult process, but Britain certainly imagines itself to be a major international player, focused on upholding the rules-based international order. Under that overarching identity, there are a host of other identities at play – some of them longstanding, but two of significant importance that have only emerged since that referendum: Leave, and Remain. Research on Brexit identities published by the UK in a Changing Europe research group in January 2019, found that while Remain as an identity appeared later than Leave during the referendum campaign, they are now roughly of equal strength. Roughly equal numbers of people adhere to both Remain and Leave identities, with about equivalent strength. These identities are also more powerful than other existing political identities, such as party identity. While one in five British people don’t report a party identity, only one in 16 doesn’t report either a Remain or Leave identity. The electorate are therefore broadly divided between two powerful identity blocs, of roughly equal size. As we saw in the European parliamentary elections, they are strongly polarised – the two parties that finished top of that ballot, the Brexit Party and the Liberal Democrats, represent the clearest articulation of each side of this divide. These identities are deeply and sincerely held on both sides. They are defined in part by a rejection of the other identity, but also by what positive vision they hold for the future. This poses a significant challenge for politicians and civil servants seeking to lead the UK through the process of leaving the EU, and through a host of related policy issues around trade, immigration, and so on. The polarisation between Leave and Remain is often commented on in dark tones. Many have said that the UK is irreparably divided and therefore dysfunctional to the point of impeding the ability of anyone party to govern it effectively. Others claim that the referendum and then Brexit itself created and then embedded unbridgeable divides between these two large groups of voters. This gap will be near impossible to surmount, particularly as research shows these voters interpret the same economic data differently. Looking for Common Ground But there is also reason to believe that some common ground can be found here. Both sides do hold a set of common beliefs. Both, for example, have extolled the virtues of openness. For Leavers, Britain’s membership of the EU was a barrier to being a globally connected and accessible country, for Remainers it was a means to facilitate that. Both sides have also argued that Britain is an important country in global terms. While Remainers say this is, in part, due to membership of the EU which serves to amplify Britain’s voice in the world, Leavers say it’s despite the country being inside the union, and that Britain’s importance may even be enhanced by leaving. The commonalities here reflect elements of the overarching identities such as Britishness that cross both groups. The downside is that these concepts might not be firm bases upon which to bring the country together. This can play out in two ways. Either neither side will recognise the other as truly sharing the value that they proclaim. Openness is a good example here. Both sides proclaim that they value openness, but that the other is in favour of being closed off from the world – either because they seek to detach the UK from the EU, or because they seek to keep the UK inside the club. The other possibility is that, when a common ground issue is used to try and build a consensus, it is co-opted by one side or another, and so the bridge to common ground is lost. Either way, British politicians will need to try and reunite the country. Indeed, the newly appointed prime minister made it the second point of his campaign list – but only after delivering Brexit. Electorally, it will be difficult for him, or any party leader, to get a majority in a general election in a country that is so divided on what has become such a central issue. When it comes to building public support for policies to tackle the myriad crises facing Britain – from immigration policy to regional devolution – the same problem persists: policies can be perceived radically differently by the two identity groups. Seeking to bridge that gap will be hard. The way forward should centre on speaking to the common ground that does exist, but also spending more time discussing trade offs and compromise. Johnson does not appear to have adopted this strategy – the immediate reaction to his government appointments has been to colour it as a more, not less, divisive government, and his rhetoric on Brexit has not shown much sign of compromise. Public figures from both sides of the Leave and Remain divide will have to discover more overt enthusiasm for compromising if they want to draw the venom out of the Brexit identity clash. Otherwise, governing the UK will continue to be far more challenging that it was before 2016 for some time to come. (Timothy Oliver is Lecturer in British Politics and Public Policy, University of Manchester) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Here's how Boris Johnson can unite a country mired in a Brexit identity crisis

By Simon Usherwood

We’re talking a lot about Brexit in Britain. Whether it’s our hopes or – more likely – our frustrations, it’s the subject that we never quite seem to escape from.

But take a step back and think what those conversations focus on: outcomes. I’m guessing many people have a pretty good idea of what their family, friends and colleagues would like the end point of this process to be. It’s no coincidence that more people identify as Leavers or Remainers than as members of political parties.

Probably much less clear is how the potential outcomes – leaving the EU without a deal, leaving with a deal or remaining – are going to come about. The referendum was an exercise in ends, not means.

The two campaigns fought for votes with sweeping promises, but no fixed single plan. The vote wasn’t like a general election, where the winners have to take office and make good on their manifesto. Instead, the incentive was for campaigners to say whatever would get people to send votes their way, and if they won then they’d decide what that meant.

That’s why most of the second half of 2016 was spent with politicians arguing that they knew what the people wanted from Brexit.

Making It Up As We Go

The referendum also failed to produce any consensus about what happened next: it was a decision that lacked a rationale and a roadmap. It’s one thing to say we want to take back control, but quite another to translate that into a practical course of action. And so we’ve had to make it up as we go along.

Of course, all politics is like this. The vagaries of life mean we’re never quite confronted with what we expected. But usually that happens within a fairly well-defined range of parameters, with a political system that can make improvised decisions on the basis of generally-agreed principles.

Brexit hasn’t fitted into that mould, for three reasons.

First, its scope is so broad that its implications touch on every area of our political, economic and social lives. Second, its novelty means that we lack useful benchmarks to judge our actions: in legal terms it might simply be leaving an international organisation, but it clearly goes far beyond that.

And third, the division that the referendum exposed and reinforced between different sections of British society have made it very hard to find common ground.

The upshot has been a growing willingness, from all sides, to do whatever it takes to secure the outcome they want. The UK has gone from being one of the more sedate political systems of the world to one where ever more creative takes on the constitutional and parliamentary procedure are being suggested.

Conservative leadership contender Boris Johnson has not ruled out proroguing, or shutting down, parliament in order to push through a no-deal Brexit. Meanwhile, the Conservative MP Dominic Grieve managed to get parliament to approve an amendment to a piece of legislation regarding Northern Ireland, which could make shutting down parliament more difficult. And the former prime minister, John Major, suggested he may take a future Johnson government to court to prevent parliament being shut down.

The Means Matter 
 
Brexit matters. The choice we eventually make will have profound implications for decades to come, both for the UK and for its place in the world. But that is precisely why it’s essential that the manner of taking that decision matters as much as the decision itself.

Already we see how distrust of the people and processes that have got us this far has poisoned our ability to progress. Whether you think campaigners broke the rules in the referendum or you think judges are enemies of the state or you feel the media is a cheerleader rather than a reporter of what’s happening, if we don’t trust the way we make the decisions, then we risk also losing trust in the decisions themselves.

All of which brings us to one of the bigger questions of politics: do the ends always justify the means?

History shows us that part of what makes a democracy work, and work in a sustainable way, is a consensus about rules. Constitutions embody and embed that consensus in a way that is different from other rules for precisely that reason.

But extraordinary exceptions have a habit of becoming the norm, as with the emergency powers given to governments post 9/11; the revolution justifies the counter-revolution. We can disagree on what to do, but we need to agree on how we make a decision between the choices facing us – leaving with a deal, leaving with no deal or remaining – otherwise we risk damaging everything that follows.

Usually, this is the point where the author offers a solution, but you’ll not get that here. It’s not for me to tell you what to do, beyond sitting down together and working together to see where our common ground lies. And if we find that our existing political processes won’t work to resolve this – for example, a general election – then we need to agree on new ones that do.

So as politicians and the public alike work on their plans this summer, they might want to reflect on not the “what” of Brexit, but also the “how”. Maybe that might make some of those Brexit conversations a bit more productive and enlightening.

(Simon Usherwood is Reader in Politics, University of Surrey)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-its-not-just-where-britains-going-that-matters-but-how-it-gets-there-120127">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Simon Usherwood We’re talking a lot about Brexit in Britain. Whether it’s our hopes or – more likely – our frustrations, it’s the subject that we never quite seem to escape from.

By Simon Usherwood We’re talking a lot about Brexit in Britain. Whether it’s our hopes or – more likely – our frustrations, it’s the subject that we never quite seem to escape from. But take a step back and think what those conversations focus on: outcomes. I’m guessing many people have a pretty good idea of what their family, friends and colleagues would like the end point of this process to be. It’s no coincidence that more people identify as Leavers or Remainers than as members of political parties. Probably much less clear is how the potential outcomes – leaving the EU without a deal, leaving with a deal or remaining – are going to come about. The referendum was an exercise in ends, not means. The two campaigns fought for votes with sweeping promises, but no fixed single plan. The vote wasn’t like a general election, where the winners have to take office and make good on their manifesto. Instead, the incentive was for campaigners to say whatever would get people to send votes their way, and if they won then they’d decide what that meant. That’s why most of the second half of 2016 was spent with politicians arguing that they knew what the people wanted from Brexit. Making It Up As We Go The referendum also failed to produce any consensus about what happened next: it was a decision that lacked a rationale and a roadmap. It’s one thing to say we want to take back control, but quite another to translate that into a practical course of action. And so we’ve had to make it up as we go along. Of course, all politics is like this. The vagaries of life mean we’re never quite confronted with what we expected. But usually that happens within a fairly well-defined range of parameters, with a political system that can make improvised decisions on the basis of generally-agreed principles. Brexit hasn’t fitted into that mould, for three reasons. First, its scope is so broad that its implications touch on every area of our political, economic and social lives. Second, its novelty means that we lack useful benchmarks to judge our actions: in legal terms it might simply be leaving an international organisation, but it clearly goes far beyond that. And third, the division that the referendum exposed and reinforced between different sections of British society have made it very hard to find common ground. The upshot has been a growing willingness, from all sides, to do whatever it takes to secure the outcome they want. The UK has gone from being one of the more sedate political systems of the world to one where ever more creative takes on the constitutional and parliamentary procedure are being suggested. Conservative leadership contender Boris Johnson has not ruled out proroguing, or shutting down, parliament in order to push through a no-deal Brexit. Meanwhile, the Conservative MP Dominic Grieve managed to get parliament to approve an amendment to a piece of legislation regarding Northern Ireland, which could make shutting down parliament more difficult. And the former prime minister, John Major, suggested he may take a future Johnson government to court to prevent parliament being shut down. The Means Matter Brexit matters. The choice we eventually make will have profound implications for decades to come, both for the UK and for its place in the world. But that is precisely why it’s essential that the manner of taking that decision matters as much as the decision itself. Already we see how distrust of the people and processes that have got us this far has poisoned our ability to progress. Whether you think campaigners broke the rules in the referendum or you think judges are enemies of the state or you feel the media is a cheerleader rather than a reporter of what’s happening, if we don’t trust the way we make the decisions, then we risk also losing trust in the decisions themselves. All of which brings us to one of the bigger questions of politics: do the ends always justify the means? History shows us that part of what makes a democracy work, and work in a sustainable way, is a consensus about rules. Constitutions embody and embed that consensus in a way that is different from other rules for precisely that reason. But extraordinary exceptions have a habit of becoming the norm, as with the emergency powers given to governments post 9/11; the revolution justifies the counter-revolution. We can disagree on what to do, but we need to agree on how we make a decision between the choices facing us – leaving with a deal, leaving with no deal or remaining – otherwise we risk damaging everything that follows. Usually, this is the point where the author offers a solution, but you’ll not get that here. It’s not for me to tell you what to do, beyond sitting down together and working together to see where our common ground lies. And if we find that our existing political processes won’t work to resolve this – for example, a general election – then we need to agree on new ones that do. So as politicians and the public alike work on their plans this summer, they might want to reflect on not the “what” of Brexit, but also the “how”. Maybe that might make some of those Brexit conversations a bit more productive and enlightening. (Simon Usherwood is Reader in Politics, University of Surrey) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Brexit: It’s not just where Britain’s going that matters, but how it gets there

Britain's government is committed to doing whatever it can to keep its financial sector globally competitive after Brexit, financial services minister John Glen said on Tuesday.

Britain is due to leave the European Union on October 31 but it has yet to secure a divorce settlement with the bloc, the UK financial sector`s single biggest customer.

Uncertainty for finance has increased as a new British prime minister is being selected.

Glen said there must be a "clear plan" to maintain the UK financial sector`s global success as it cannot be taken for granted. 
 
"It would be a tragedy if we lost our competitive advantage by accident," Glen told a TheCityUK conference.

He knew the financial sector, known in Britain as the City, wanted an end to the 'Brexit impasse'.

Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam, Luxembourg and Dublin have been vying to attract new hubs being opened by UK-based financial companies needing an EU base after Brexit.

Bankers see the shift of some jobs and activities from the City to the EU as inevitable and one-way, whatever the future UK trading deal with Brussels.

But Glen said none of those rival financial centres in the EU can match all that London has to offer.

TheCityUK`s new chair, Mark Tucker, said the financial sector was Britain`s most successful economic sector bar none and has a comparative advantage over other countries in that it is difficult, if not impossible, to replicate.

"It's the envy of other nations," said Tucker, who also chairs HSBC bank.

Finance needed to recover the public`s trust and have a "coherent and united front" so that it becomes more than the sum of its parts to demonstrate the benefits that finance brings to the economy and communities, Tucker said.&nbsp;

Britain's government is committed to doing whatever it can to keep its financial sector globally competitive after Brexit, financial services minister John Glen said on Tuesday.

Britain's government is committed to doing whatever it can to keep its financial sector globally competitive after Brexit, financial services minister John Glen said on Tuesday. Britain is due to leave the European Union on October 31 but it has yet to secure a divorce settlement with the bloc, the UK financial sector`s single biggest customer. Uncertainty for finance has increased as a new British prime minister is being selected. Glen said there must be a "clear plan" to maintain the UK financial sector`s global success as it cannot be taken for granted. "It would be a tragedy if we lost our competitive advantage by accident," Glen told a TheCityUK conference. He knew the financial sector, known in Britain as the City, wanted an end to the 'Brexit impasse'. Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam, Luxembourg and Dublin have been vying to attract new hubs being opened by UK-based financial companies needing an EU base after Brexit. Bankers see the shift of some jobs and activities from the City to the EU as inevitable and one-way, whatever the future UK trading deal with Brussels. But Glen said none of those rival financial centres in the EU can match all that London has to offer. TheCityUK`s new chair, Mark Tucker, said the financial sector was Britain`s most successful economic sector bar none and has a comparative advantage over other countries in that it is difficult, if not impossible, to replicate. "It's the envy of other nations," said Tucker, who also chairs HSBC bank. Finance needed to recover the public`s trust and have a "coherent and united front" so that it becomes more than the sum of its parts to demonstrate the benefits that finance brings to the economy and communities, Tucker said.

Britain says it will do everything to keep finance competitive after Brexit

The race to become Britain's next premier opened in earnest Saturday with an array of hopefuls promising to succeed where <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/british-pm-theresa-may-annouces-resignation-over-brexit-deal-221263">Theresa May failed</a> and finally pull the divided country out of the EU.

But European leaders insisted they had made their final offer after months of acrimonious talks that produced an unpopular compromise for which May ended up paying with her job.

May is bowing out with her legacy in tatters and the country in agony over what to do about the voters' decision in 2016 to abandon the European integration project after nearly 50 years.

The markets view the risk of Britain crashing out of the EU bloc when the twice-delayed departure date arrives on October 31 as uncomfortably high.

Their main concern is that some of the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/race-to-replace-theresa-may-leaves-brexit-in-limbo-221489">current frontrunners</a> to head May's Conservative Party say they will get Brexit done at any cost.

"We will leave the EU on October 31, deal or no deal," former foreign minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-boris-johnson-lied-in-brexit-campaign-court-hears-221247">Boris Johnson</a> said Friday in Switzerland.

Johnson's main challenges will come from former Brexit secretary Dominic Raab -- viewed as an even more committed eurosceptic -- and Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt.

Both declared their candidacies in the Sunday papers.

Raab wrote in The Mail on Sunday that "I would prefer that we leave with a deal".

But "we will not be taken seriously in Brussels unless we are clear that we will walk away on World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms if the EU doesn't budge," Raab stressed.

Hunt had campaigned against Brexit in 2016 but has since reversed his stance.

"What matters is whether you believe in Brexit, not how you voted in 2016," he told The Sunday Times.

"We can never take no-deal off the table but the best way of avoiding it is to make sure you have someone who is capable of negotiating a deal," Britain's top diplomat said.

'Enthusiastic about Brexit'

Brexit-backing Environment Secretary Michael Gove is also expected to throw his hat in the ring in a BBC interview to be aired on Sunday evening.

The Sunday Times said Grove will argue that he has "a better track record" and is more "capable" than the other leading contenders for May's post.

The contest is being held against the backdrop of European Parliament elections that the new Brexit Party of the anti-EU populist Nigel Farage is expected to win with about a third of the vote.

Polls indicate that the Conservatives will be punished for their bickering over Brexit and could finish as low as fifth -- their worst result in a national election.

The candidates are also mindful of a party revolt over May's fateful decision to court the pro-EU opposition with the promise of a second Brexit referendum.

The concession was designed to help ram her withdrawal agreement through parliament on the fourth attempt.

But it won her no converts and sparked a party coup attempt that forced May to walk away before she was pushed out.

This prompted more EU-friendly hopefuls such as Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd to concede Saturday that they stood no chance and would not vie for the job.

"I am conscious the Conservative Party wants someone who they believe is very enthusiastic about Brexit," Rudd told The Daily Telegraph.

Johnson is a popular figure viewed by many Conservatives as their best answer to Farage.

But a long political career that also saw him serve as London's mayor has made him enemies in parliament who will try to block his rise to the top.

Dark horses

Parliamentary party members will begin whittling down the field of contenders to a final two on June 10.

The finalists will then be put to a postal ballot of around 100,000 party members in July.

The field grew further on Saturday when Health Secretary Matt Hancock entered the race with a promise to take a more moderate approach.

Leaving the European Union without an agreement is "not an active policy choice that is available to the next prime minister," Hancock told Sky News.

Hancock is view as one of the dark horses who might make it through a crowded field of more than a dozen names.

International Development Secretary Rory Stewart is also positioning himself as a more consensus-seeking alternative to Johnson.

"It now seems that (Johnson) is coming out for a no-deal Brexit," Stewart told BBC radio.

"I think it would be a huge mistake. Damaging, unnecessary, and I think also dishonest."

Yet neither Hancock nor Stewart would say if they would push ahead with May's current agreement or try to secure added concessions from Brussels. 
&nbsp;

The race to become Britain's next premier opened in earnest Saturday with an array of hopefuls promising to succeed where Theresa May failed and finally pull the divided country out of the EU.

The race to become Britain's next premier opened in earnest Saturday with an array of hopefuls promising to succeed where Theresa May failed and finally pull the divided country out of the EU. But European leaders insisted they had made their final offer after months of acrimonious talks that produced an unpopular compromise for which May ended up paying with her job. May is bowing out with her legacy in tatters and the country in agony over what to do about the voters' decision in 2016 to abandon the European integration project after nearly 50 years. The markets view the risk of Britain crashing out of the EU bloc when the twice-delayed departure date arrives on October 31 as uncomfortably high. Their main concern is that some of the current frontrunners to head May's Conservative Party say they will get Brexit done at any cost. "We will leave the EU on October 31, deal or no deal," former foreign minister Boris Johnson said Friday in Switzerland. Johnson's main challenges will come from former Brexit secretary Dominic Raab -- viewed as an even more committed eurosceptic -- and Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt. Both declared their candidacies in the Sunday papers. Raab wrote in The Mail on Sunday that "I would prefer that we leave with a deal". But "we will not be taken seriously in Brussels unless we are clear that we will walk away on World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms if the EU doesn't budge," Raab stressed. Hunt had campaigned against Brexit in 2016 but has since reversed his stance. "What matters is whether you believe in Brexit, not how you voted in 2016," he told The Sunday Times. "We can never take no-deal off the table but the best way of avoiding it is to make sure you have someone who is capable of negotiating a deal," Britain's top diplomat said. 'Enthusiastic about Brexit' Brexit-backing Environment Secretary Michael Gove is also expected to throw his hat in the ring in a BBC interview to be aired on Sunday evening. The Sunday Times said Grove will argue that he has "a better track record" and is more "capable" than the other leading contenders for May's post. The contest is being held against the backdrop of European Parliament elections that the new Brexit Party of the anti-EU populist Nigel Farage is expected to win with about a third of the vote. Polls indicate that the Conservatives will be punished for their bickering over Brexit and could finish as low as fifth -- their worst result in a national election. The candidates are also mindful of a party revolt over May's fateful decision to court the pro-EU opposition with the promise of a second Brexit referendum. The concession was designed to help ram her withdrawal agreement through parliament on the fourth attempt. But it won her no converts and sparked a party coup attempt that forced May to walk away before she was pushed out. This prompted more EU-friendly hopefuls such as Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd to concede Saturday that they stood no chance and would not vie for the job. "I am conscious the Conservative Party wants someone who they believe is very enthusiastic about Brexit," Rudd told The Daily Telegraph. Johnson is a popular figure viewed by many Conservatives as their best answer to Farage. But a long political career that also saw him serve as London's mayor has made him enemies in parliament who will try to block his rise to the top. Dark horses Parliamentary party members will begin whittling down the field of contenders to a final two on June 10. The finalists will then be put to a postal ballot of around 100,000 party members in July. The field grew further on Saturday when Health Secretary Matt Hancock entered the race with a promise to take a more moderate approach. Leaving the European Union without an agreement is "not an active policy choice that is available to the next prime minister," Hancock told Sky News. Hancock is view as one of the dark horses who might make it through a crowded field of more than a dozen names. International Development Secretary Rory Stewart is also positioning himself as a more consensus-seeking alternative to Johnson. "It now seems that (Johnson) is coming out for a no-deal Brexit," Stewart told BBC radio. "I think it would be a huge mistake. Damaging, unnecessary, and I think also dishonest." Yet neither Hancock nor Stewart would say if they would push ahead with May's current agreement or try to secure added concessions from Brussels.

UK leadership hopefuls vow to succeed where Theresa May failed on Brexit

By Nicholas Allen

Europe has claimed the career of yet another Conservative prime minister. After less than three years in office, Theresa May has suffered a catastrophic loss of confidence in her leadership among MPs and cabinet ministers. She has finally faced up to the demands from within her party and announced her resignation.

Indicating her intention to step down, May said she had tried her best to deliver Brexit but accepted that she had not managed to get MPs to agree. She said she was leaving with no ill will, only “gratitude”.

She will depart from Downing Street on June 7 and the competition to replace her will formally begin the following week – though in reality, it has been underway for some time.

Indeed, May’s departure has been a long time coming. Many speculated that she couldn’t remain long in office after losing her party’s majority in the 2017 general election. In December, when facing a vote of no confidence among her MPs, she promised not to lead her party into the next general election. In March this year, in a bid to persuade more MPs to back the Brexit withdrawal agreement, she promised to leave sooner rather than later.

May’s resilience has been remarkable. But it is also finite. Leaders can only lead when they have followers and too few Tories are now prepared to follow May any longer.

May’s premiership was brief but eventful. She fought a general election, faced down an internal party vote of no confidence and won a parliamentary vote of no confidence. She also lost the services of more than 30 ministers, many of whom resigned over Brexit disagreements.

Brexit means …

Much of the drama of course has been fuelled by Brexit. It launched May’s premiership in July 2016, when she succeeded David Cameron. It has been the source of most of her woes. And it has finally wrecked her premiership.

May was elected Tory leader in part because she seemed to offer a safe pair of hands for delivering the referendum result after Cameron jumped ship. Brexit would mean Brexit, she told her party; and if no one was clear on what she meant, most thought she would deliver.

So where did it go wrong? Three points in time are worth considering, if only because they focus attention on the challenges she has faced.

The first is of course the decision that ultimately forced May’s hand. This came shortly before her resignation, when she presented a new set of “compromises” on her Brexit plans that would please precisely no one. She had been planning to present them for a parliamentary vote, despite already having lost three votes on her deal. The deal was now utterly toxic, and May’s intention to persist suggested a loss of judgement. Her stubbornness, once valued, was now a significant liability. Her party told her enough was enough.

But while this was the immediate trigger for her announcement, the seeds were sown long ago. The second point at which it all went wrong was the 2017 general election. The Conservatives gained votes but lost their parliamentary majority. May lost much of her personal authority as a result.

At the start of that election campaign, May had looked set to win a commanding majority. But even if she had won big, securing support for a withdrawal agreement would not have been simple. Her authority would have been greater, to be sure, and she would have had more MPs to support her, but it is unlikely that the withdrawal agreement would have looked much different. Many of the fundamentalist Brexiteers in her party could well have opposed it.

Which perhaps suggests that her demise was written into her story from the very moment she decided to run for the leadership in June 2016.

It was always going to be a monumental task to keep her party united as she sought to deliver on the Brexit referendum. Moderates in her party would have opposed a very hard Brexit. Anything less than a very hard Brexit would have been resisted by fundamentalists on the Tory benches.

May has made many mistakes along the way. Her suggestion early on that “no deal is better than a bad deal” was always a hostage to fortune. She might also have offered reassurance to Remainers and talked of the need for compromise, even as she pursued her vision. But this assumes that people in her party and parliament would have been willing to accept compromise.

Brexit has rapidly become a touchstone issue for political identity, akin to abortion and gun control in the US. In the circumstances the window for compromise was always small and fleeting.

As she confirmed that she was giving up, May sent a signal to potential successors, speaking once again about compromise, revealing that the late British humanitarian Nicholas Winton once told her: “Never forget that compromise is not a dirty word. Life depends on compromise.”

 
(Nicholas Allen is Leader in Politics, Royal Holloway)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/theresa-may-resigns-as-british-prime-minister-heres-where-it-all-went-wrong-117763">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Nicholas Allen Europe has claimed the career of yet another Conservative prime minister. After less than three years in office, Theresa May has suffered a catastrophic loss of confidence in her leadership among MPs and cabinet ministers.

By Nicholas Allen Europe has claimed the career of yet another Conservative prime minister. After less than three years in office, Theresa May has suffered a catastrophic loss of confidence in her leadership among MPs and cabinet ministers. She has finally faced up to the demands from within her party and announced her resignation. Indicating her intention to step down, May said she had tried her best to deliver Brexit but accepted that she had not managed to get MPs to agree. She said she was leaving with no ill will, only “gratitude”. She will depart from Downing Street on June 7 and the competition to replace her will formally begin the following week – though in reality, it has been underway for some time. Indeed, May’s departure has been a long time coming. Many speculated that she couldn’t remain long in office after losing her party’s majority in the 2017 general election. In December, when facing a vote of no confidence among her MPs, she promised not to lead her party into the next general election. In March this year, in a bid to persuade more MPs to back the Brexit withdrawal agreement, she promised to leave sooner rather than later. May’s resilience has been remarkable. But it is also finite. Leaders can only lead when they have followers and too few Tories are now prepared to follow May any longer. May’s premiership was brief but eventful. She fought a general election, faced down an internal party vote of no confidence and won a parliamentary vote of no confidence. She also lost the services of more than 30 ministers, many of whom resigned over Brexit disagreements. Brexit means … Much of the drama of course has been fuelled by Brexit. It launched May’s premiership in July 2016, when she succeeded David Cameron. It has been the source of most of her woes. And it has finally wrecked her premiership. May was elected Tory leader in part because she seemed to offer a safe pair of hands for delivering the referendum result after Cameron jumped ship. Brexit would mean Brexit, she told her party; and if no one was clear on what she meant, most thought she would deliver. So where did it go wrong? Three points in time are worth considering, if only because they focus attention on the challenges she has faced. The first is of course the decision that ultimately forced May’s hand. This came shortly before her resignation, when she presented a new set of “compromises” on her Brexit plans that would please precisely no one. She had been planning to present them for a parliamentary vote, despite already having lost three votes on her deal. The deal was now utterly toxic, and May’s intention to persist suggested a loss of judgement. Her stubbornness, once valued, was now a significant liability. Her party told her enough was enough. But while this was the immediate trigger for her announcement, the seeds were sown long ago. The second point at which it all went wrong was the 2017 general election. The Conservatives gained votes but lost their parliamentary majority. May lost much of her personal authority as a result. At the start of that election campaign, May had looked set to win a commanding majority. But even if she had won big, securing support for a withdrawal agreement would not have been simple. Her authority would have been greater, to be sure, and she would have had more MPs to support her, but it is unlikely that the withdrawal agreement would have looked much different. Many of the fundamentalist Brexiteers in her party could well have opposed it. Which perhaps suggests that her demise was written into her story from the very moment she decided to run for the leadership in June 2016. It was always going to be a monumental task to keep her party united as she sought to deliver on the Brexit referendum. Moderates in her party would have opposed a very hard Brexit. Anything less than a very hard Brexit would have been resisted by fundamentalists on the Tory benches. May has made many mistakes along the way. Her suggestion early on that “no deal is better than a bad deal” was always a hostage to fortune. She might also have offered reassurance to Remainers and talked of the need for compromise, even as she pursued her vision. But this assumes that people in her party and parliament would have been willing to accept compromise. Brexit has rapidly become a touchstone issue for political identity, akin to abortion and gun control in the US. In the circumstances the window for compromise was always small and fleeting. As she confirmed that she was giving up, May sent a signal to potential successors, speaking once again about compromise, revealing that the late British humanitarian Nicholas Winton once told her: “Never forget that compromise is not a dirty word. Life depends on compromise.” (Nicholas Allen is Leader in Politics, Royal Holloway) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Theresa May resigns as British prime minister – here’s where it all went wrong

Prime Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-eyes-july-brexit-deal-meps-likely-to-take-seats-218795">Theresa May's government </a>will publish draft legislation in the first week of June that would allow Brexit to proceed if approved by parliament, a Downing Street spokesman announced on Tuesday.

The statement came after talks between May and <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/british-pm-tells-labour-lets-do-a-deal-on-brexit-215999">opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn</a> on a possible compromise that would end a deadlock on Brexit in parliament.

May met with Corbyn "to make clear our determination to bring the talks to a conclusion and deliver on the referendum result to leave the EU".

"We will therefore be bringing forward the Withdrawal Agreement Bill in the week beginning June 3," the spokesman said, referring to a draft law based on the divorce deal agreed with EU leaders.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/britains-two-main-parties-punished-in-local-election-for-brexit-chaos-partial-results-215592">May's Conservatives, Labour punished in local election over Brexit chaos</a>

May was seeking a "stable majority in parliament that will ensure the safe passage of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill and the UK's swift exit from the EU", the spokesman said.

For the past six weeks, ministers and their Labour counterparts have been discussing how parliament might accept the agreement May struck with the European Union (EU) last year.

Progress has been painfully slow, and there are growing calls in May's Conservative party to abandon the process.

But her ministers discussed at a cabinet meeting on Tuesday "the compromises which the government was prepared to consider" and agreed to keep talking, May's spokesman said.

They also said it was "imperative" that any exit plan be approved by parliament before MPs go on their summer holiday, which normally begins at the end of July.

"What she (May) is working to do is to get a deal passed as soon as possible," the spokesman said.

MPs have already rejected May's Brexit deal three times.

She turned to Labour last month in the hope of finding a way through, but the party is insisting on a close trading relationship with the EU that many Conservative MPs reject.

A Labour party spokesperson said Corbyn had raised "concerns about the prime minister's ability to deliver on any compromise agreement".

"He raised doubts over the credibility of government commitments," the spokesperson said, following statements by Conservative MPs seeking to replace May.

After twice delaying Brexit, Britain is reluctantly taking part in European Parliament elections on May 23, almost three years after the referendum vote to leave the bloc.

The government had hoped to get the London parliament's agreement for the divorce deal in the coming weeks so British MEPs would never have to take their seats.

But the goal outlined on Tuesday, of getting the bill to ratify the treaty passed by the end of July, suggests they will have to.

"The factual position is if MEPs are elected and (the British) parliament has not approved a withdrawal agreement bill which has achieved royal assent by June 30, they will take their seats," May's spokesman said.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PTTBfbEo7k8" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Prime Minister Theresa May's government will publish draft legislation in the first week of June that would allow Brexit to proceed if approved by parliament, a Downing Street spokesman announced on Tuesday.

Prime Minister Theresa May's government will publish draft legislation in the first week of June that would allow Brexit to proceed if approved by parliament, a Downing Street spokesman announced on Tuesday. The statement came after talks between May and opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn on a possible compromise that would end a deadlock on Brexit in parliament. May met with Corbyn "to make clear our determination to bring the talks to a conclusion and deliver on the referendum result to leave the EU". "We will therefore be bringing forward the Withdrawal Agreement Bill in the week beginning June 3," the spokesman said, referring to a draft law based on the divorce deal agreed with EU leaders. Also read: May's Conservatives, Labour punished in local election over Brexit chaos May was seeking a "stable majority in parliament that will ensure the safe passage of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill and the UK's swift exit from the EU", the spokesman said. For the past six weeks, ministers and their Labour counterparts have been discussing how parliament might accept the agreement May struck with the European Union (EU) last year. Progress has been painfully slow, and there are growing calls in May's Conservative party to abandon the process. But her ministers discussed at a cabinet meeting on Tuesday "the compromises which the government was prepared to consider" and agreed to keep talking, May's spokesman said. They also said it was "imperative" that any exit plan be approved by parliament before MPs go on their summer holiday, which normally begins at the end of July. "What she (May) is working to do is to get a deal passed as soon as possible," the spokesman said. MPs have already rejected May's Brexit deal three times. She turned to Labour last month in the hope of finding a way through, but the party is insisting on a close trading relationship with the EU that many Conservative MPs reject. A Labour party spokesperson said Corbyn had raised "concerns about the prime minister's ability to deliver on any compromise agreement". "He raised doubts over the credibility of government commitments," the spokesperson said, following statements by Conservative MPs seeking to replace May. After twice delaying Brexit, Britain is reluctantly taking part in European Parliament elections on May 23, almost three years after the referendum vote to leave the bloc. The government had hoped to get the London parliament's agreement for the divorce deal in the coming weeks so British MEPs would never have to take their seats. But the goal outlined on Tuesday, of getting the bill to ratify the treaty passed by the end of July, suggests they will have to. "The factual position is if MEPs are elected and (the British) parliament has not approved a withdrawal agreement bill which has achieved royal assent by June 30, they will take their seats," May's spokesman said. ×

British government to put forward Brexit bill in June

The British Prime Minister Theresa May is set to make another attempt to garner Parliament support on Brexit Bill. Watch full video to know more.

Theresa May to put forward Brexit bill in Parliament in June

British Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservatives are facing a battering at this month's European Parliament elections amid the Brexit impasse, presenting their candidates with quite a challenge in the campaign for votes.

With May's authority hanging by a thread, Brexit postponed, voters fed up and eurosceptics deserting the party in droves, according to opinion polls, Ashley Fox, who leads the Conservatives in the outgoing European Parliament, concedes that this election campaign is "difficult".

"I understand why people are angry," the 49-year-old MEP said, drinking a cup of tea in the Conservative Party offices in Bristol, southwest England.

In June 2016, 52 per cent of voters were in favour of Britain leaving the European Union.

Brexit was originally set to happen on March 29 this year. But MPs could not agree on the divorce deal May struck with Brussels and now the departure date has been set back to October 31.

As a result, Britain must take part in the European Parliament elections, being held in the UK on May 23, to elect MEPs who may take their seats for a few months only.

Protest vote fears

The election "will be difficult for my party because electors are frustrated, and we saw that in the local elections," said Fox.

In the local authority polls on May 2, both main parties -- the Conservatives and the Labour opposition -- took a pounding as exasperated voters switched elsewhere.

The Brexit Party, newly formed by eurosceptic figurehead Nigel Farage, is leading the opinion polls for the European Parliament elections.

"We would prefer that they wouldn't be taking place. But we will fight them," said Fox, as he urged voters not to defect to Farage's single-issue start-up.

A survey by pollsters Opinium, out Sunday in The Observer newspaper, put the Brexit Party on 34 per cent, Labour on 21 per cent, the anti-Brexit Liberal Democrats on 12 per cent and the Conservatives on 11 per cent.

The campaigning enthusiasm shown by Fox is not matched by Conservative headquarters in London.

Perhaps sensing which way the wind is blowing, the centre-right party is yet to hold an official campaign launch, leaving the battle to the footsoldiers.

Standing for re-election in the southwest England constituency, which returns six MEPs, Fox has planned a limited campaign focused on social media rather than doorknocking.

He insists that is not out of fear of meeting the voters, but due to the lack of time between now and polling day for elections, he never expected to be standing in.

With less than a fortnight to go until the polls, Stephen Williams, who is standing for the Liberal Democrats, is hoping the centrist party can maintain the impressive resurgence it witnessed in the local elections.

He is out knocking on doors almost every day.

"My main message is: we want to stop Brexit," Williams told AFP while out campaigning in Redcliffe in the heart of Bristol.

Calling at one opulent house, he is met by a young man who seems startled by the knock and uninterested in the election.

But Williams, 52, is used to the hazards of doorknocking: he has been doing it for 35 years and was the Bristol West member of the British parliament from 2005 to 2015.

Brexit 'mess'

The next house offers a more enthusiastic welcome. On the porch, Dan Tyndall, a reverend, willingly shares the candidate's pro-European outlook.

"I hope for something that gives us a very clear indication as to how we can get ourselves out of this mess," the cleric said of the elections.

With a thick wad of leaflets, Williams goes tirelessly from door to door and does not encounter a single Brexiteer.

In Bristol, 62 per cent of voters wanted Britain to remain in the EU.

"The Liberal Democrats are the largest pro-remain party," Williams tells Elizabeth Davies, 57, as her little black dog barks.

Here again, his message falls on receptive ears.

"I have never ever voted Conservative in my entire life and I now can't vote for the Labour Party because they haven't come out as an opposition party," she said.

The two main parties are continuing to negotiate on a possible Brexit compromise, and Labour is pursuing what has been dubbed "constructive ambiguity" on the topic.

Satisfied, Williams presses on with his campaigning, in the hope of securing a seat -- and keeping it if Britain does a U-turn on its Brexit decision.

British Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservatives are facing a battering at this month's European Parliament elections amid the Brexit impasse, presenting their candidates with quite a challenge in the campaign for votes.

British Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservatives are facing a battering at this month's European Parliament elections amid the Brexit impasse, presenting their candidates with quite a challenge in the campaign for votes. With May's authority hanging by a thread, Brexit postponed, voters fed up and eurosceptics deserting the party in droves, according to opinion polls, Ashley Fox, who leads the Conservatives in the outgoing European Parliament, concedes that this election campaign is "difficult". "I understand why people are angry," the 49-year-old MEP said, drinking a cup of tea in the Conservative Party offices in Bristol, southwest England. In June 2016, 52 per cent of voters were in favour of Britain leaving the European Union. Brexit was originally set to happen on March 29 this year. But MPs could not agree on the divorce deal May struck with Brussels and now the departure date has been set back to October 31. As a result, Britain must take part in the European Parliament elections, being held in the UK on May 23, to elect MEPs who may take their seats for a few months only. Protest vote fears The election "will be difficult for my party because electors are frustrated, and we saw that in the local elections," said Fox. In the local authority polls on May 2, both main parties -- the Conservatives and the Labour opposition -- took a pounding as exasperated voters switched elsewhere. The Brexit Party, newly formed by eurosceptic figurehead Nigel Farage, is leading the opinion polls for the European Parliament elections. "We would prefer that they wouldn't be taking place. But we will fight them," said Fox, as he urged voters not to defect to Farage's single-issue start-up. A survey by pollsters Opinium, out Sunday in The Observer newspaper, put the Brexit Party on 34 per cent, Labour on 21 per cent, the anti-Brexit Liberal Democrats on 12 per cent and the Conservatives on 11 per cent. The campaigning enthusiasm shown by Fox is not matched by Conservative headquarters in London. Perhaps sensing which way the wind is blowing, the centre-right party is yet to hold an official campaign launch, leaving the battle to the footsoldiers. Standing for re-election in the southwest England constituency, which returns six MEPs, Fox has planned a limited campaign focused on social media rather than doorknocking. He insists that is not out of fear of meeting the voters, but due to the lack of time between now and polling day for elections, he never expected to be standing in. With less than a fortnight to go until the polls, Stephen Williams, who is standing for the Liberal Democrats, is hoping the centrist party can maintain the impressive resurgence it witnessed in the local elections. He is out knocking on doors almost every day. "My main message is: we want to stop Brexit," Williams told AFP while out campaigning in Redcliffe in the heart of Bristol. Calling at one opulent house, he is met by a young man who seems startled by the knock and uninterested in the election. But Williams, 52, is used to the hazards of doorknocking: he has been doing it for 35 years and was the Bristol West member of the British parliament from 2005 to 2015. Brexit 'mess' The next house offers a more enthusiastic welcome. On the porch, Dan Tyndall, a reverend, willingly shares the candidate's pro-European outlook. "I hope for something that gives us a very clear indication as to how we can get ourselves out of this mess," the cleric said of the elections. With a thick wad of leaflets, Williams goes tirelessly from door to door and does not encounter a single Brexiteer. In Bristol, 62 per cent of voters wanted Britain to remain in the EU. "The Liberal Democrats are the largest pro-remain party," Williams tells Elizabeth Davies, 57, as her little black dog barks. Here again, his message falls on receptive ears. "I have never ever voted Conservative in my entire life and I now can't vote for the Labour Party because they haven't come out as an opposition party," she said. The two main parties are continuing to negotiate on a possible Brexit compromise, and Labour is pursuing what has been dubbed "constructive ambiguity" on the topic. Satisfied, Williams presses on with his campaigning, in the hope of securing a seat -- and keeping it if Britain does a U-turn on its Brexit decision.

Theresa May's Conservatives battle Brexit ballot bloodbath

Since the Brexit vote, the UK government has championed the notion of “Global Britain” as a vision for the country’s future outside the EU. But what does Global Britain actually mean?

For the government, it appears to mean a Britain trading freely across the world, as in the days of the empire. For many on the right, membership of the EU has held back the country from doing so and Brexit offers an opportunity to address the problem. As Theresa May put it, "It is time for Britain to get out into the world and rediscover its role as a great, global trading nation."

The government recommends that Britain boosts trade links with the former colonies of the empire – countries that are now members of the Commonwealth (such as India and Nigeria) and/or the so-called “Anglosphere” (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA).

In this way, we are told, Britain will become great again and even help “transform the world for the better”. This sounds reasonable, but scratching beneath the surface reveals that Global Britain is based on little substance and, worse still, a bad imperialist idea.

Alternative to the EU

To begin with, the economic benefits of Global Britain are far from clear. In 2016, the then US president, Barack Obama, stated that Britain would go to the “back of the queue” in trade negotiations should it leave the EU. This is not surprising, given the UK has long been America’s gateway into Europe. Leaving the EU would in effect weaken US bargaining power in Europe and, in turn, erode, rather than strengthen, UK-US trade relations.

Gaining access to the US market would become much harder and would likely lead to Britain accepting US demands on labour and environmental standards, which would be, as a former EU director-general for trade claimed, “tantamount to becoming the 51st state on economic questions without the right to vote”. This is why some argue that if Britain wants to be a great global nation it needs to actually stay in the EU.

The trade potential with other Anglosphere states is also not so obvious, with those countries now set on developing relationships in their own regions. In Australia, for instance, the prevailing view is that the country’s economic future lies in the proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership which would include Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea, as well as the 10 ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) member, states: Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Philippines, Cambodia, Brunei, Myanmar (Burma) and Laos.

There may be more potential with India, the Commonwealth’s most important economy, although there are significant uncertainties. One difficulty is the current UK anti-migration stance, including the decision in 2011 to scrap post-study visas. This has raised concerns in India where leaders have made it clear that visa leniency will be key to a closer trade relationship post-Brexit. Meeting this demand won’t be easy given immigration was one of the concerns that led to the Brexit vote in the first place.

Another concern is that the EU is India’s largest trading partner and the two parties have been in talks about a free trade agreement for more than a decade. Brexit may in fact help in delivering such an agreement, given two main British hurdles to EU negotiations with India: post-study visas and the longstanding demand that India lowers its sky-high tariff on Scotch whisky. Plus, France has been working hard to replace Britain as India’s bridge to Europe.

As for Britain’s former colonies in Africa, most of these are relatively small economies that by no means provide an alternative to the EU’s single market. Besides, European powers are fast losing ground to China on the African continent – especially in Anglophone Africa.

Yearning for empire

Global Britain appears to be more of a neo-colonial fantasy. Rather than being motivated by a clear economic rationale, the project is largely motivated by a nostalgia for the UK’s imperial past evident in the language used by the Brexiteers in the last few years – for example UKIP’s James Carver assertion that, outside the EU, “the world is our oyster, and the Commonwealth remains that precious pearl within”.

This fantasy is symptomatic of, and directly fuels, the “post-colonial melancholia” that has afflicted Britain since the decline of its empire. Perhaps more than any other former European colonial power, Britain has struggled to come to terms with the loss of its imperial possessions and privileges. This is in part due to an education system that says little about the horrors and inequities of British imperialism and, worse still, is encouraged by government to celebrate the empire – the language of Global Britain is testament to that.

Real politik

This Global Britain fantasy is undesirable and self-defeating. For one, it ignores and consciously erases the brutal history of the empire, including its transatlantic slave traders and plunderers and its genocidal settler colonialism in places now called Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA, where indigenous peoples were routinely slaughtered.

This history makes the goal of rediscovering Britain’s role as “a great, global trading nation” not only a shameful approach to international trade post-Brexit but also counterproductive. Why would former colonies embrace a Britain that not only refuses to atone for its colonial sins but worse still, envisions its future as “Empire 2.0”?

The idea of Global Britain is simply the last gasp of a dying empire. Britons can either prolong the agony or work towards a new Britain, one that’s finally come to terms with its colonial past and ready to engage with the world on non-imperialist terms. The EU may or may not be the way forward, but the Global Britain narrative is likely to prove counterproductive either way. 
 
(Mehdi Boussebaa is Professor, University of Glasgow)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexits-global-britain-uk-needs-a-clear-economic-strategy-for-its-trading-future-not-a-dead-colonial-fantasy-116707">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

&nbsp;

Since the Brexit vote, the UK government has championed the notion of “Global Britain” as a vision for the country’s future outside the EU. But what does Global Britain actually mean?

Since the Brexit vote, the UK government has championed the notion of “Global Britain” as a vision for the country’s future outside the EU. But what does Global Britain actually mean? For the government, it appears to mean a Britain trading freely across the world, as in the days of the empire. For many on the right, membership of the EU has held back the country from doing so and Brexit offers an opportunity to address the problem. As Theresa May put it, "It is time for Britain to get out into the world and rediscover its role as a great, global trading nation." The government recommends that Britain boosts trade links with the former colonies of the empire – countries that are now members of the Commonwealth (such as India and Nigeria) and/or the so-called “Anglosphere” (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA). In this way, we are told, Britain will become great again and even help “transform the world for the better”. This sounds reasonable, but scratching beneath the surface reveals that Global Britain is based on little substance and, worse still, a bad imperialist idea. Alternative to the EU To begin with, the economic benefits of Global Britain are far from clear. In 2016, the then US president, Barack Obama, stated that Britain would go to the “back of the queue” in trade negotiations should it leave the EU. This is not surprising, given the UK has long been America’s gateway into Europe. Leaving the EU would in effect weaken US bargaining power in Europe and, in turn, erode, rather than strengthen, UK-US trade relations. Gaining access to the US market would become much harder and would likely lead to Britain accepting US demands on labour and environmental standards, which would be, as a former EU director-general for trade claimed, “tantamount to becoming the 51st state on economic questions without the right to vote”. This is why some argue that if Britain wants to be a great global nation it needs to actually stay in the EU. The trade potential with other Anglosphere states is also not so obvious, with those countries now set on developing relationships in their own regions. In Australia, for instance, the prevailing view is that the country’s economic future lies in the proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership which would include Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea, as well as the 10 ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) member, states: Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Philippines, Cambodia, Brunei, Myanmar (Burma) and Laos. There may be more potential with India, the Commonwealth’s most important economy, although there are significant uncertainties. One difficulty is the current UK anti-migration stance, including the decision in 2011 to scrap post-study visas. This has raised concerns in India where leaders have made it clear that visa leniency will be key to a closer trade relationship post-Brexit. Meeting this demand won’t be easy given immigration was one of the concerns that led to the Brexit vote in the first place. Another concern is that the EU is India’s largest trading partner and the two parties have been in talks about a free trade agreement for more than a decade. Brexit may in fact help in delivering such an agreement, given two main British hurdles to EU negotiations with India: post-study visas and the longstanding demand that India lowers its sky-high tariff on Scotch whisky. Plus, France has been working hard to replace Britain as India’s bridge to Europe. As for Britain’s former colonies in Africa, most of these are relatively small economies that by no means provide an alternative to the EU’s single market. Besides, European powers are fast losing ground to China on the African continent – especially in Anglophone Africa. Yearning for empire Global Britain appears to be more of a neo-colonial fantasy. Rather than being motivated by a clear economic rationale, the project is largely motivated by a nostalgia for the UK’s imperial past evident in the language used by the Brexiteers in the last few years – for example UKIP’s James Carver assertion that, outside the EU, “the world is our oyster, and the Commonwealth remains that precious pearl within”. This fantasy is symptomatic of, and directly fuels, the “post-colonial melancholia” that has afflicted Britain since the decline of its empire. Perhaps more than any other former European colonial power, Britain has struggled to come to terms with the loss of its imperial possessions and privileges. This is in part due to an education system that says little about the horrors and inequities of British imperialism and, worse still, is encouraged by government to celebrate the empire – the language of Global Britain is testament to that. Real politik This Global Britain fantasy is undesirable and self-defeating. For one, it ignores and consciously erases the brutal history of the empire, including its transatlantic slave traders and plunderers and its genocidal settler colonialism in places now called Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA, where indigenous peoples were routinely slaughtered. This history makes the goal of rediscovering Britain’s role as “a great, global trading nation” not only a shameful approach to international trade post-Brexit but also counterproductive. Why would former colonies embrace a Britain that not only refuses to atone for its colonial sins but worse still, envisions its future as “Empire 2.0”? The idea of Global Britain is simply the last gasp of a dying empire. Britons can either prolong the agony or work towards a new Britain, one that’s finally come to terms with its colonial past and ready to engage with the world on non-imperialist terms. The EU may or may not be the way forward, but the Global Britain narrative is likely to prove counterproductive either way. (Mehdi Boussebaa is Professor, University of Glasgow) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

UK needs a clear economic strategy for its trading future, not a dead colonial fantasy

By Andy Price

For all the complexity that surrounds how (and, crucially, if) the UK leaves the European Union, the story of how it got into its current situation is actually incredibly simple. The Brexit that Prime Minister Theresa May has tried to engineer, a product of the internal tensions of her own party, was doomed from the start.

Coming to power as she did in the aftermath of the referendum, May made the one decision from which all her other missteps of the last few years would stem: she chose to represent one side, and one side only of the Brexit debate, and used this as the guiding star for her entire approach to Brexit.

From the moment she took office, she drew the reddest of red lines. At her Conservative Party conference speech in 2016, she introduced the mantras that would come to define her. We heard that “Brexit means Brexit”, that Britain would have a bright future as a sovereign nation outside of the EU.

A few months later at Lancaster House, she told the country she aimed to end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK. That essentially meant committing to leaving the single market and the customs union. Across these speeches, she also introduced into the political lexicon the phrase that has haunted most politicians since – that the “losers” of the 2016 referendum must respect the result as the “will of the people”.

Later still, as prime minister, May called a snap election in the name of helping her deliver Brexit. She openly dismissed anyone opposing Brexit – which at the very least meant the 16.5m who had voted remain – as “playing games with politics”.

In hock to the hardline Brexiteers within her own party, May pushed a for a version of Brexit that would make this small group of around 100 or so individuals happy, regardless of what millions out in the country though.

The impact of this approach should not be underestimated. It not only polarised the national debate, entrenching the fissures brought forth by the referendum, but it bound May to an approach to Brexit negotiations that rendered her deal dead on arrival. Her commitment to essentially a pure Brexit meant a border between the UK and the EU in Ireland or a softening of the very parameters she had staked her entire project on. It’s not hard to see how this would end.

Failings across the board 
 
May’s own mishandling of the entire project should form the centre of any analysis of how the UK got where it is now. However, she had many handmaidens helping her along the way.

Indeed, almost all MPs were blindsided by the result of the referendum. They were then rapidly cowed into submission by the “will of the people” mantra. The overwhelming parliamentary support for triggering Article 50 in February 2017 is a great example of this.

But there are individual MPs, and smaller groupings, who would help dye May’s red lines even redder. Of course, the European Research Group (ERG) has been key. Vocal ideologues like Iain Duncan Smith and Jacob Rees Mogg have kept the pressure up, hoping for a hard Brexit. For all their protestations, such a plan has never come close to carrying majority support in parliament.

In addition to the ERG, there are individual politicians who appear to view the whole exercise as one, great political game. Boris Johnson is the example par excellence. He amends his position on May’s deal according only to how it seems to apparently benefit his own leadership aspirations. And Nigel Farage – the most arch of the arch Brexiteers, who played a major role in the Brexit campaign, even if not an official one – continues to make great personal headway out of the whole farrago. He has radio shows, TV appearances, transport in private jets. He has most recently even been seen enjoying jolly japes with his supposed enemies in the EU. 
 
But perhaps the greatest helping hand May has had in limping towards the sad end of her Brexit project has come from the opposition. Blindsided by the fact that many of their constituencies voted Leave, and led by a man who is historically a eurosceptic, Labour has failed throughout the past two years to do the one thing the House of Commons is built to engender. Labour’s approach has been constructive ambiguity.

Though this may now finally be shifting at the eleventh hour, for nearly three years, Labour has neither come out against May’s Brexit or Brexit in general out of fear of its Leave constituents. It has therefore failed to challenge the government on its legislative programme. It has robbed the country of the one thing it needed more than ever in the face of a minority government that wasn’t listening – strong and clear opposition.

None of the above is particularly new, or hidden, or opaque: it is there in the historical record, for all of us to see. And it must be seen: to move past the unparalleled failure of May’s Brexit, the UK needs to learn – and quickly – from the woeful mistakes of a woefully unprepared political class.

(Andy Price is Head of Politics, Sheffield Hallam University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-is-not-just-theresa-mays-disaster-britains-whole-political-class-has-failed-a-nation-114463">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Andy Price For all the complexity that surrounds how (and, crucially, if) the UK leaves the European Union, the story of how it got into its current situation is actually incredibly simple.

By Andy Price For all the complexity that surrounds how (and, crucially, if) the UK leaves the European Union, the story of how it got into its current situation is actually incredibly simple. The Brexit that Prime Minister Theresa May has tried to engineer, a product of the internal tensions of her own party, was doomed from the start. Coming to power as she did in the aftermath of the referendum, May made the one decision from which all her other missteps of the last few years would stem: she chose to represent one side, and one side only of the Brexit debate, and used this as the guiding star for her entire approach to Brexit. From the moment she took office, she drew the reddest of red lines. At her Conservative Party conference speech in 2016, she introduced the mantras that would come to define her. We heard that “Brexit means Brexit”, that Britain would have a bright future as a sovereign nation outside of the EU. A few months later at Lancaster House, she told the country she aimed to end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK. That essentially meant committing to leaving the single market and the customs union. Across these speeches, she also introduced into the political lexicon the phrase that has haunted most politicians since – that the “losers” of the 2016 referendum must respect the result as the “will of the people”. Later still, as prime minister, May called a snap election in the name of helping her deliver Brexit. She openly dismissed anyone opposing Brexit – which at the very least meant the 16.5m who had voted remain – as “playing games with politics”. In hock to the hardline Brexiteers within her own party, May pushed a for a version of Brexit that would make this small group of around 100 or so individuals happy, regardless of what millions out in the country though. The impact of this approach should not be underestimated. It not only polarised the national debate, entrenching the fissures brought forth by the referendum, but it bound May to an approach to Brexit negotiations that rendered her deal dead on arrival. Her commitment to essentially a pure Brexit meant a border between the UK and the EU in Ireland or a softening of the very parameters she had staked her entire project on. It’s not hard to see how this would end. Failings across the board May’s own mishandling of the entire project should form the centre of any analysis of how the UK got where it is now. However, she had many handmaidens helping her along the way. Indeed, almost all MPs were blindsided by the result of the referendum. They were then rapidly cowed into submission by the “will of the people” mantra. The overwhelming parliamentary support for triggering Article 50 in February 2017 is a great example of this. But there are individual MPs, and smaller groupings, who would help dye May’s red lines even redder. Of course, the European Research Group (ERG) has been key. Vocal ideologues like Iain Duncan Smith and Jacob Rees Mogg have kept the pressure up, hoping for a hard Brexit. For all their protestations, such a plan has never come close to carrying majority support in parliament. In addition to the ERG, there are individual politicians who appear to view the whole exercise as one, great political game. Boris Johnson is the example par excellence. He amends his position on May’s deal according only to how it seems to apparently benefit his own leadership aspirations. And Nigel Farage – the most arch of the arch Brexiteers, who played a major role in the Brexit campaign, even if not an official one – continues to make great personal headway out of the whole farrago. He has radio shows, TV appearances, transport in private jets. He has most recently even been seen enjoying jolly japes with his supposed enemies in the EU. But perhaps the greatest helping hand May has had in limping towards the sad end of her Brexit project has come from the opposition. Blindsided by the fact that many of their constituencies voted Leave, and led by a man who is historically a eurosceptic, Labour has failed throughout the past two years to do the one thing the House of Commons is built to engender. Labour’s approach has been constructive ambiguity. Though this may now finally be shifting at the eleventh hour, for nearly three years, Labour has neither come out against May’s Brexit or Brexit in general out of fear of its Leave constituents. It has therefore failed to challenge the government on its legislative programme. It has robbed the country of the one thing it needed more than ever in the face of a minority government that wasn’t listening – strong and clear opposition. None of the above is particularly new, or hidden, or opaque: it is there in the historical record, for all of us to see. And it must be seen: to move past the unparalleled failure of May’s Brexit, the UK needs to learn – and quickly – from the woeful mistakes of a woefully unprepared political class. (Andy Price is Head of Politics, Sheffield Hallam University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Brexit is not just Theresa May’s disaster – Britain’s whole political class has failed a nation

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has said the EU is "running out" of patience with Britain over Brexit.

The United Kingdom is in crisis after lawmakers three times rejected Prime Minister Theresa May's proposed divorce deal, and now risks crashing out of the bloc in under two weeks.

"With our British friends we have had a lot of patience, but even patience is running out," Juncker told Italian public TV channel Rai 1 on Sunday.

"I would like, in the coming hours and days, for Great Britain to reach an agreement on the way forward."

MPs held "indicative votes" last week on eight alternative Brexit options, but none of them achieved a majority.&nbsp;

"Up to now, we know what the British parliament says no to, but we do not know what it says yes to," Juncker said.

Asked about the matter of a second referendum -- an option demanded by many of those who would prefer to remain in the EU -- Juncker said that "it is something that concerns the British only".&nbsp;

"They have to decide which instruments they will use to reach the end of this process."

Italy's eurosceptic coalition government -- in power since last June -- believes it has not received enough support from the EU to manage migrants arriving by sea and has closed its ports.

But Juncker said the bloc has "strongly supported" Italy, giving more than one billion euros to help the Mediterranean country with "this massive flow of refugees".

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has said the EU is "running out" of patience with Britain over Brexit. The United Kingdom is in crisis after lawmakers three times rejected Prime Minister Theresa May's proposed divorce deal, and now risks crashing out of the bloc in under two weeks.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has said the EU is "running out" of patience with Britain over Brexit. The United Kingdom is in crisis after lawmakers three times rejected Prime Minister Theresa May's proposed divorce deal, and now risks crashing out of the bloc in under two weeks. "With our British friends we have had a lot of patience, but even patience is running out," Juncker told Italian public TV channel Rai 1 on Sunday. "I would like, in the coming hours and days, for Great Britain to reach an agreement on the way forward." MPs held "indicative votes" last week on eight alternative Brexit options, but none of them achieved a majority. "Up to now, we know what the British parliament says no to, but we do not know what it says yes to," Juncker said. Asked about the matter of a second referendum -- an option demanded by many of those who would prefer to remain in the EU -- Juncker said that "it is something that concerns the British only". "They have to decide which instruments they will use to reach the end of this process." Italy's eurosceptic coalition government -- in power since last June -- believes it has not received enough support from the EU to manage migrants arriving by sea and has closed its ports. But Juncker said the bloc has "strongly supported" Italy, giving more than one billion euros to help the Mediterranean country with "this massive flow of refugees".

EU president Juncker says bloc is 'running out of patience' with UK over Brexit

Brexit in quotes: What UK leaders have said since 2016 referendum

Over an agonising two-hour grilling, British Prime Minister Theresa May failed to convince exasperated European leaders she has any plan to deliver an orderly Brexit if MPs vote her withdrawal deal down.

Tightlipped and evasive, she parried questions until EU chiefs asked her to leave Thursday's summit meeting and embarked on a negotiation among themselves to draw up a new Brexit timetable.

"British politicians are today incapable of implementing what the people asked for," France's President Emmanuel Macron declared.&nbsp;

EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker was "at the end of his tether", one diplomatic source told AFP.&nbsp;

May's government is in crisis and she has proved unable to muster a majority to approve the Brexit withdrawal deal struck at a previous Brussels get-together in November.

With a potentially catastrophic "no deal" departure looming on March 29, the other 27 EU leaders were determined to take charge and came to Brussels armed with the clear plan.&nbsp;

As set out by host EU Council president Donald Tusk and in draft conclusions leaked to the media, they offered to postpone Brexit to May 22 if British MPs backed the prime minister's withdrawal agreement.

But the leaders wanted to know what she would do if the deal fails again -- as most observers believe is likely.

"She replied that she has no plan B, but was sticking to plan A," one source said.

"She didn't have answers to all the questions," Luxembourg's Prime Minister Xavier Bettel told reporters on Friday morning.

May waits outside

Once May had left the room, Macron told the meeting that he had arrived believing there was a 10 per cent chance that May would succeed, according to several European sources.

But, after hearing from her, he said: "I think there is a five per cent chance". To which Tusk retorted, "You are very optimistic."

While May lurked in her delegation's office space, and the leaders argued over dinner, a new conclusions document was drawn up. &nbsp;

After six hours, they eventually agreed to add to their original offer an unconditional proposal to delay Brexit to April 12.

They were forced to postpone a planned discussion on relations with China -- for which May had been due to rejoin them, over dinner -- as different leaders set out different options.

"It was very intense," said Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, a reflection echoed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

At a press conference afterwards, Tusk insisted there was no rancour. "It was first and foremost a discussion about all possible scenarios. What if, what if -- nobody knows," an EU source said.&nbsp;

May stayed in the building, and was briefed three times by Tusk -- once before the talks, once during a break and again after they finally reached an agreement at 11.20pm.

Some of her team followed developments as they leaked out onto Twitter, with one official admitting afterwards that some of the options considered "would have been quite challenging".

EU hopes for 'rational choice'

In the end, Britain accepted the offer, even if it fell short of May's proposal for a delay until June 30, and several European leaders expressed satisfaction at the result.

Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel said the EU "hoped for a rational choice" from Britain, but there remains intense frustration at the deadlock in parliament.

The EU had previously floated the idea of an emergency summit next week if MPs reject May's deal, but Macron warned this would put the responsibility to decide onto the leaders.

"The EU doesn't have all the cards, because everything depends on the British vote," Macron told a late-night press conference.

And Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic said: "We're a little bit careful given the history of votes."

The discussion over the extension threatened to undermine the unity of the 27, which has held remarkably well since Britain's 2016 referendum.

But diplomats said that leaders are determined that Brexit wranglings will not disrupt preparations for European Parliament elections in May.

"Now Brexit touches really the core of the functioning of the European Union," one said.

Over an agonising two-hour grilling, British Prime Minister Theresa May failed to convince exasperated European leaders she has any plan to deliver an orderly Brexit if MPs vote her withdrawal deal down.

Over an agonising two-hour grilling, British Prime Minister Theresa May failed to convince exasperated European leaders she has any plan to deliver an orderly Brexit if MPs vote her withdrawal deal down. Tightlipped and evasive, she parried questions until EU chiefs asked her to leave Thursday's summit meeting and embarked on a negotiation among themselves to draw up a new Brexit timetable. "British politicians are today incapable of implementing what the people asked for," France's President Emmanuel Macron declared. EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker was "at the end of his tether", one diplomatic source told AFP. May's government is in crisis and she has proved unable to muster a majority to approve the Brexit withdrawal deal struck at a previous Brussels get-together in November. With a potentially catastrophic "no deal" departure looming on March 29, the other 27 EU leaders were determined to take charge and came to Brussels armed with the clear plan. As set out by host EU Council president Donald Tusk and in draft conclusions leaked to the media, they offered to postpone Brexit to May 22 if British MPs backed the prime minister's withdrawal agreement. But the leaders wanted to know what she would do if the deal fails again -- as most observers believe is likely. "She replied that she has no plan B, but was sticking to plan A," one source said. "She didn't have answers to all the questions," Luxembourg's Prime Minister Xavier Bettel told reporters on Friday morning. May waits outside Once May had left the room, Macron told the meeting that he had arrived believing there was a 10 per cent chance that May would succeed, according to several European sources. But, after hearing from her, he said: "I think there is a five per cent chance". To which Tusk retorted, "You are very optimistic." While May lurked in her delegation's office space, and the leaders argued over dinner, a new conclusions document was drawn up. After six hours, they eventually agreed to add to their original offer an unconditional proposal to delay Brexit to April 12. They were forced to postpone a planned discussion on relations with China -- for which May had been due to rejoin them, over dinner -- as different leaders set out different options. "It was very intense," said Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, a reflection echoed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. At a press conference afterwards, Tusk insisted there was no rancour. "It was first and foremost a discussion about all possible scenarios. What if, what if -- nobody knows," an EU source said. May stayed in the building, and was briefed three times by Tusk -- once before the talks, once during a break and again after they finally reached an agreement at 11.20pm. Some of her team followed developments as they leaked out onto Twitter, with one official admitting afterwards that some of the options considered "would have been quite challenging". EU hopes for 'rational choice' In the end, Britain accepted the offer, even if it fell short of May's proposal for a delay until June 30, and several European leaders expressed satisfaction at the result. Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel said the EU "hoped for a rational choice" from Britain, but there remains intense frustration at the deadlock in parliament. The EU had previously floated the idea of an emergency summit next week if MPs reject May's deal, but Macron warned this would put the responsibility to decide onto the leaders. "The EU doesn't have all the cards, because everything depends on the British vote," Macron told a late-night press conference. And Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic said: "We're a little bit careful given the history of votes." The discussion over the extension threatened to undermine the unity of the 27, which has held remarkably well since Britain's 2016 referendum. But diplomats said that leaders are determined that Brexit wranglings will not disrupt preparations for European Parliament elections in May. "Now Brexit touches really the core of the functioning of the European Union," one said.

May leaves Brexit summit with more time, less respect

British Prime Minister Theresa May held crisis talks Sunday with Conservative colleagues as she tries to plot a path through a pivotal week in the Brexit process amid reports her leadership is under imminent threat.

Ensconced at her country residence Chequers, the embattled premier must decide when, or even if, to ask British MPs to vote again on her unpopular EU divorce deal which they have already overwhelmingly rejected twice.

She is also confronted with the prospect of lawmakers seizing control of House of Commons procedures in order to hold a series of so-called "indicative votes" to reveal what support exists for other options.

It follows May securing at a European Union summit this week a delay to Britain's scheduled March 29 departure for at least three weeks to get her agreement approved or find a viable alternative.

"The prime minister is speaking to her colleagues this weekend," a Downing Street spokeswoman said Sunday, declining to confirm reports she would hold an afternoon summit with leading Brexiteer MPs outside government.

After a particularly chaotic week even for May's crisis-plagued tenure -- during which she made an ill-judged attack on MPs' intransigence on her plan -- speculation is rife that Conservatives are preparing to force her to resign.

The Sunday Times reported she was "at the mercy of a full-blown cabinet coup", with plans afoot for her de facto deputy David Lidington to take over in a caretaker capacity.

The newspaper said it had spoken to 11 senior ministers who "confirmed that they wanted the prime minister to make way for someone else" and planned to confront her at a cabinet meeting on Monday. &nbsp;

The Mail on Sunday said May could be ousted "within days" and Environment Secretary Michael Gove, a prominent Brexiteer, could take over as interim leader.

Finance Minister Philip Hammond on Sunday criticised the plotters, arguing it would be "self-indulgent" to try to switch leader.

"Changing the players doesn't solve the problem," he told Sky News. "We've got to resolve this issue."

Uncertainty reigns

Britain's parliament, and cabinet has been deadlocked for months over Brexit, with lawmakers unable to decide how to implement the 2016 referendum vote to leave, reflecting bitter divisions nationwide.

On Saturday, organisers estimated one million pro-Europeans marched through central London demanding another public vote on leaving the bloc.

Following the agreement with the EU to postpone Brexit -- which MPs must still vote into British law next week -- the path forward still remains highly uncertain.

If May's deal finally wins MPs' backing Britain will leave the EU on May 22 under the terms she struck with the bloc last year.&nbsp;

If it is not passed in the coming weeks London must outline a new plan or face a no-deal Brexit as early as April 12.

A request then for another, likely lengthy, extension would require holding European Parliament elections in May.

The prime minister and Brexiteers have decried the prospect, saying it would be unfair to the narrow majority of Britons who voted to leave the bloc in 2016.

'Alternative way'

May has told MPs she will only bring back her deal for another vote if there are signs of "sufficient support".

But with her parliamentary allies the Democratic Unionist Party indicating Friday that they remain opposed to her plan, that appears unlikely.

"It's looking very difficult to bring together a majority for it," Hammond conceded to the BBC.

However, "one way or another parliament is going to have the opportunity this week to decide what it is in favour of," he added.

MPs will resume debate on Brexit on Monday and have the chance to vote on an amendment tabled by a cross-party group of senior lawmakers scheduling "indicative votes" two days later.

A similar move earlier this month failed by just two votes.&nbsp;

If passed, lawmakers will be able to vote on a range of options, from stopping Brexit altogether or holding a second referendum to remaining in a customs union with the EU or its single market.

MPs could then try to turn their non-binding votes into enforceable law.

Brexit Secretary Steve Barclay warned Sunday such a move could spark a constitutional crisis and that "the risk of a general election increases" under such a scenario.

"There is a constitutional collision if parliament is instructing a government to do something that is fundamentally against what it has been elected to do," he told the BBC.

British Prime Minister Theresa May held crisis talks Sunday with Conservative colleagues as she tries to plot a path through a pivotal week in the Brexit process amid reports her leadership is under imminent threat.

British Prime Minister Theresa May held crisis talks Sunday with Conservative colleagues as she tries to plot a path through a pivotal week in the Brexit process amid reports her leadership is under imminent threat. Ensconced at her country residence Chequers, the embattled premier must decide when, or even if, to ask British MPs to vote again on her unpopular EU divorce deal which they have already overwhelmingly rejected twice. She is also confronted with the prospect of lawmakers seizing control of House of Commons procedures in order to hold a series of so-called "indicative votes" to reveal what support exists for other options. It follows May securing at a European Union summit this week a delay to Britain's scheduled March 29 departure for at least three weeks to get her agreement approved or find a viable alternative. "The prime minister is speaking to her colleagues this weekend," a Downing Street spokeswoman said Sunday, declining to confirm reports she would hold an afternoon summit with leading Brexiteer MPs outside government. After a particularly chaotic week even for May's crisis-plagued tenure -- during which she made an ill-judged attack on MPs' intransigence on her plan -- speculation is rife that Conservatives are preparing to force her to resign. The Sunday Times reported she was "at the mercy of a full-blown cabinet coup", with plans afoot for her de facto deputy David Lidington to take over in a caretaker capacity. The newspaper said it had spoken to 11 senior ministers who "confirmed that they wanted the prime minister to make way for someone else" and planned to confront her at a cabinet meeting on Monday. The Mail on Sunday said May could be ousted "within days" and Environment Secretary Michael Gove, a prominent Brexiteer, could take over as interim leader. Finance Minister Philip Hammond on Sunday criticised the plotters, arguing it would be "self-indulgent" to try to switch leader. "Changing the players doesn't solve the problem," he told Sky News. "We've got to resolve this issue." Uncertainty reigns Britain's parliament, and cabinet has been deadlocked for months over Brexit, with lawmakers unable to decide how to implement the 2016 referendum vote to leave, reflecting bitter divisions nationwide. On Saturday, organisers estimated one million pro-Europeans marched through central London demanding another public vote on leaving the bloc. Following the agreement with the EU to postpone Brexit -- which MPs must still vote into British law next week -- the path forward still remains highly uncertain. If May's deal finally wins MPs' backing Britain will leave the EU on May 22 under the terms she struck with the bloc last year. If it is not passed in the coming weeks London must outline a new plan or face a no-deal Brexit as early as April 12. A request then for another, likely lengthy, extension would require holding European Parliament elections in May. The prime minister and Brexiteers have decried the prospect, saying it would be unfair to the narrow majority of Britons who voted to leave the bloc in 2016. 'Alternative way' May has told MPs she will only bring back her deal for another vote if there are signs of "sufficient support". But with her parliamentary allies the Democratic Unionist Party indicating Friday that they remain opposed to her plan, that appears unlikely. "It's looking very difficult to bring together a majority for it," Hammond conceded to the BBC. However, "one way or another parliament is going to have the opportunity this week to decide what it is in favour of," he added. MPs will resume debate on Brexit on Monday and have the chance to vote on an amendment tabled by a cross-party group of senior lawmakers scheduling "indicative votes" two days later. A similar move earlier this month failed by just two votes. If passed, lawmakers will be able to vote on a range of options, from stopping Brexit altogether or holding a second referendum to remaining in a customs union with the EU or its single market. MPs could then try to turn their non-binding votes into enforceable law. Brexit Secretary Steve Barclay warned Sunday such a move could spark a constitutional crisis and that "the risk of a general election increases" under such a scenario. "There is a constitutional collision if parliament is instructing a government to do something that is fundamentally against what it has been elected to do," he told the BBC.

Under threat UK prime minister Theresa  May holds Brexit crisis talks

European Union leaders have given Prime Minister Theresa May a two-week reprieve before Britain could leave the bloc without an exit deal if she fails to win parliament's backing for her agreement with Brussels.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/if-brexit-happens-it-will-constitute-a-real-test-of-eus-longevity-204853">If Brexit happens, it will constitute a real test of EU’s longevity</a>

Below is what is due to happen next:

Brexit debate: Monday 25 March

Lawmakers are due to debate a government motion saying that parliament has considered a statement made by May on March 15 which set out the government's next steps on Brexit, including its plan to seek a delay.

They will put forward proposed changes, known as amendments, to this motion setting out alternative ways forward on Brexit.

While amendments are not legally binding - although they exert political pressure on May to change course - a cross-party group of lawmakers hopes to use one to change the rules of parliament to wrest control of the Brexit process from the government.

The group, including lawmakers from May's Conservatives, have put forward a proposal which would set aside March 27 to debate and vote on alternative ways forward on Brexit to try to find a majority that would break the parliamentary deadlock.

A similar amendment voted on last week lost by just two votes so this is expected to have a good chance of passing.

Third vote on May's deal: Tuesday 26 March?

EU leaders have agreed to delay Brexit to May 22, from March 29, on the condition the Withdrawal Agreement is approved by parliament next week.

The government has yet to schedule a day for a vote but it will have to notify parliament the day before it plans to hold one. Tuesday had been the day most widely expected but with the threat of a no-deal exit on Friday now removed, some believe it could be later in the week.

Commons Speaker John Bercow has ruled that the government cannot bring forward proposals for a vote that are substantially the same as those already defeated twice before, but this is not ultimately expected to prevent the third vote if lawmakers want one to happen.

May's team says that the approval at an EU summit of the so-called Strasbourg agreement - extra assurances on the Northern Irish backstop arrangement - and other measures now change the deal's shape from the last time it was voted on.

May needs to win over at least 75 lawmakers to get her deal approved, at the moment this looks like an uphill struggle.

Indicative votes: Wednesday 27&nbsp;March?

Last week, May's de facto deputy, David Lidington, promised that if the government's deal was not approved and Britain was facing a long delay to Brexit, the government would give parliament time to consider the way forward.

"In such a scenario the government ... would facilitate a process in the two weeks after the March European Council to allow ​the House to seek a majority on the way forward," he said.

This has been interpreted as so-called indicative votes, which would allow lawmakers to vote on a variety of possible Brexit outcomes to see if there is a majority for any option.

On Thursday, May said she would honour the commitments made to parliament by her government.

Such votes could be forced on the government on Wednesday if the proposal to take control of the business in parliament, put forward by the cross-party group of lawmakers, passes on Monday.

Legislation to change exit date

Parliament must pass the legislation required to change the exit date in law before March 29.

This can be done via secondary legislation, known as a Statutory Instrument, or SI, and would need the approval of both parliament's lower chamber, the House of Commons, and upper chamber, the House of Lords. May's spokesman has said the government expects this could be done in one or two days.

No deal exit: April 12

If parliament does not support May's deal next week, the EU has agreed to delay Brexit until April 12 - the day on which Britain would have to give legal notice that it was taking part in EU elections on May 23.

"At this point we would either leave with no deal, or put forward an alternative plan," May said in Brussels on Thursday.

Exit with a deal: May 22

If May's deal is approved next week, Britain's exit will be delayed until May 22 in order to give parliament time to pass the legislation necessary to ratify the deal.

European Union leaders have given Prime Minister Theresa May a two-week reprieve before Britain could leave the bloc without an exit deal if she fails to win parliament's backing for her agreement with Brussels.

European Union leaders have given Prime Minister Theresa May a two-week reprieve before Britain could leave the bloc without an exit deal if she fails to win parliament's backing for her agreement with Brussels. Also read: If Brexit happens, it will constitute a real test of EU’s longevity Below is what is due to happen next: Brexit debate: Monday 25 March Lawmakers are due to debate a government motion saying that parliament has considered a statement made by May on March 15 which set out the government's next steps on Brexit, including its plan to seek a delay. They will put forward proposed changes, known as amendments, to this motion setting out alternative ways forward on Brexit. While amendments are not legally binding - although they exert political pressure on May to change course - a cross-party group of lawmakers hopes to use one to change the rules of parliament to wrest control of the Brexit process from the government. The group, including lawmakers from May's Conservatives, have put forward a proposal which would set aside March 27 to debate and vote on alternative ways forward on Brexit to try to find a majority that would break the parliamentary deadlock. A similar amendment voted on last week lost by just two votes so this is expected to have a good chance of passing. Third vote on May's deal: Tuesday 26 March? EU leaders have agreed to delay Brexit to May 22, from March 29, on the condition the Withdrawal Agreement is approved by parliament next week. The government has yet to schedule a day for a vote but it will have to notify parliament the day before it plans to hold one. Tuesday had been the day most widely expected but with the threat of a no-deal exit on Friday now removed, some believe it could be later in the week. Commons Speaker John Bercow has ruled that the government cannot bring forward proposals for a vote that are substantially the same as those already defeated twice before, but this is not ultimately expected to prevent the third vote if lawmakers want one to happen. May's team says that the approval at an EU summit of the so-called Strasbourg agreement - extra assurances on the Northern Irish backstop arrangement - and other measures now change the deal's shape from the last time it was voted on. May needs to win over at least 75 lawmakers to get her deal approved, at the moment this looks like an uphill struggle. Indicative votes: Wednesday 27 March? Last week, May's de facto deputy, David Lidington, promised that if the government's deal was not approved and Britain was facing a long delay to Brexit, the government would give parliament time to consider the way forward. "In such a scenario the government ... would facilitate a process in the two weeks after the March European Council to allow the House to seek a majority on the way forward," he said. This has been interpreted as so-called indicative votes, which would allow lawmakers to vote on a variety of possible Brexit outcomes to see if there is a majority for any option. On Thursday, May said she would honour the commitments made to parliament by her government. Such votes could be forced on the government on Wednesday if the proposal to take control of the business in parliament, put forward by the cross-party group of lawmakers, passes on Monday. Legislation to change exit date Parliament must pass the legislation required to change the exit date in law before March 29. This can be done via secondary legislation, known as a Statutory Instrument, or SI, and would need the approval of both parliament's lower chamber, the House of Commons, and upper chamber, the House of Lords. May's spokesman has said the government expects this could be done in one or two days. No deal exit: April 12 If parliament does not support May's deal next week, the EU has agreed to delay Brexit until April 12 - the day on which Britain would have to give legal notice that it was taking part in EU elections on May 23. "At this point we would either leave with no deal, or put forward an alternative plan," May said in Brussels on Thursday. Exit with a deal: May 22 If May's deal is approved next week, Britain's exit will be delayed until May 22 in order to give parliament time to pass the legislation necessary to ratify the deal.

Here is what is due to happen next in Brexit

Amid the respite accorded to the United Kingdom for an “orderly Brexit”, Italy’s signing into China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and other assorted and allied developments, it appears that the future of the European Union (EU) is at stake. The “supranational” body or union, conceived after the end of the Second World war and reified soon after, was in the nature of a lofty and noble attempt to bring an end to Europe’s fratricidal wars, a corrective to balance of power politics and perhaps above all, an attempt to tame if not transcend nationalism.&nbsp;

But, now after many decades since the inception of the EU construct, it appears to be floundering. If and when Brexit happens, it will constitute a real test of the EU’s longevity.

There are many reasons for the frailty and fragility of the EU. The salient among these is the quest for the return of nationalism and sovereignty that, among other things, accord certainty to people. Yes, there are economic reasons of political economy that account for the structural weakness of the entity, but the longing for certainty could be held to be the most significant one. &nbsp;

Inhering in the EU, like the coeval mega-historical phenomenon of globalisation, was a structural dissipation and amelioration of sovereignty and its concomitant, nationalism. Both, in quasi-retreat now, implied loss of certainty and even control by denizens of places that were impacted by these the most. Be it the massive churn and movement of peoples from across the world largely to the West, or massive capital flows (hot capital) that crisscrossed the world, free trade and so on, the traditional, “neat” container, the nation-state, wherein since its inception, the state corresponded to the nation, generally, was under assault or in retreat.

The politico-economic and cultural shifts and societal changes that this entailed, especially in many Western countries meant certain disorientation among people. Overlaid by a putative or, more accurately suspended between the 'Third Industrial Revolution' and a putative Fourth one, the confluence of these trends impacted negatively and disproportionately, the “working classes” of the affected countries. So powerful and such was the magnitude of the trends and developments in contention that these outpaced politics and extant political paradigms. In fact, politics in the West became ossified and stunted which, among other things, caused many people, especially the working classes to feel, or even actually be, at the mercy of these forces and structural trends. It is here that the trajectory of “identity politics” was born and begotten.

Identity politics sought refuge and reassurance in an “organic” and “pure” identity. In other words, identity was essentialised wherein people desired or even craved a return to the “good old days of the past”, so to speak. This axiomatically entailed a robust demand for nationalism and sovereignty with Brexit symbolising and reflecting it, in all its eloquence. &nbsp;

That there is nothing “organic” or “pure” about identity is well known but the wellspring of either is emotion(s) and these are hard, if not impossible to contain, especially through reason and rationality (of which the state is an expression of). Given the “irrationality” of identity politics and the powerful emotive forces that underlie it, the tour de force of this kind of politics is perhaps only set to grow. The more it becomes the dominant paradigm of politics and political life, the more tenuous and fragile the European Union will become, leading ultimately to its collapse, an outcome that will give short shrift to the so-called “post-national” age and will again strengthen the foundations of the nation-state, an end that is not entirely salubrious, to say the least.

But, all said and done, there is a putative silver lining on the horizon. This lies in politics. If it was politics of a certain type that begat identity politics and its many discontents, it is in politics that redemption might lie for the EU. But, for this to happen and fructify, there has to be a paradigm shift if not a veritable revolution in the way politics is conceived and practised. The “new” politics must be of nature which breaks from past shibboleths and takes on identity politics in an idiom that smells of roses. The world we inhabit, in many senses, is a new world and the new politics must speak to it and seize the initiative not merely for a salvage job but also by way of “ creative destruction”.

In the final analysis, the European Union is a bold and a beautiful experiment in transcending narrow and parochial identities, the traditional nation state-centrism and sovereignty and nationalism. It must neither crack nor break. For the entity to survive coherently and as a robust and significant player on the world stage, the new politics referred to here has to reified and catapulted into action now. Tomorrow may be too late!

 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

 
&nbsp;

Amid the respite accorded to the United Kingdom for an “orderly Brexit”, Italy’s signing into China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and other assorted and allied developments, it appears that the future of the European Union (EU) is at stake.

Amid the respite accorded to the United Kingdom for an “orderly Brexit”, Italy’s signing into China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and other assorted and allied developments, it appears that the future of the European Union (EU) is at stake. The “supranational” body or union, conceived after the end of the Second World war and reified soon after, was in the nature of a lofty and noble attempt to bring an end to Europe’s fratricidal wars, a corrective to balance of power politics and perhaps above all, an attempt to tame if not transcend nationalism. But, now after many decades since the inception of the EU construct, it appears to be floundering. If and when Brexit happens, it will constitute a real test of the EU’s longevity. There are many reasons for the frailty and fragility of the EU. The salient among these is the quest for the return of nationalism and sovereignty that, among other things, accord certainty to people. Yes, there are economic reasons of political economy that account for the structural weakness of the entity, but the longing for certainty could be held to be the most significant one. Inhering in the EU, like the coeval mega-historical phenomenon of globalisation, was a structural dissipation and amelioration of sovereignty and its concomitant, nationalism. Both, in quasi-retreat now, implied loss of certainty and even control by denizens of places that were impacted by these the most. Be it the massive churn and movement of peoples from across the world largely to the West, or massive capital flows (hot capital) that crisscrossed the world, free trade and so on, the traditional, “neat” container, the nation-state, wherein since its inception, the state corresponded to the nation, generally, was under assault or in retreat. The politico-economic and cultural shifts and societal changes that this entailed, especially in many Western countries meant certain disorientation among people. Overlaid by a putative or, more accurately suspended between the 'Third Industrial Revolution' and a putative Fourth one, the confluence of these trends impacted negatively and disproportionately, the “working classes” of the affected countries. So powerful and such was the magnitude of the trends and developments in contention that these outpaced politics and extant political paradigms. In fact, politics in the West became ossified and stunted which, among other things, caused many people, especially the working classes to feel, or even actually be, at the mercy of these forces and structural trends. It is here that the trajectory of “identity politics” was born and begotten. Identity politics sought refuge and reassurance in an “organic” and “pure” identity. In other words, identity was essentialised wherein people desired or even craved a return to the “good old days of the past”, so to speak. This axiomatically entailed a robust demand for nationalism and sovereignty with Brexit symbolising and reflecting it, in all its eloquence. That there is nothing “organic” or “pure” about identity is well known but the wellspring of either is emotion(s) and these are hard, if not impossible to contain, especially through reason and rationality (of which the state is an expression of). Given the “irrationality” of identity politics and the powerful emotive forces that underlie it, the tour de force of this kind of politics is perhaps only set to grow. The more it becomes the dominant paradigm of politics and political life, the more tenuous and fragile the European Union will become, leading ultimately to its collapse, an outcome that will give short shrift to the so-called “post-national” age and will again strengthen the foundations of the nation-state, an end that is not entirely salubrious, to say the least. But, all said and done, there is a putative silver lining on the horizon. This lies in politics. If it was politics of a certain type that begat identity politics and its many discontents, it is in politics that redemption might lie for the EU. But, for this to happen and fructify, there has to be a paradigm shift if not a veritable revolution in the way politics is conceived and practised. The “new” politics must be of nature which breaks from past shibboleths and takes on identity politics in an idiom that smells of roses. The world we inhabit, in many senses, is a new world and the new politics must speak to it and seize the initiative not merely for a salvage job but also by way of “ creative destruction”. In the final analysis, the European Union is a bold and a beautiful experiment in transcending narrow and parochial identities, the traditional nation state-centrism and sovereignty and nationalism. It must neither crack nor break. For the entity to survive coherently and as a robust and significant player on the world stage, the new politics referred to here has to reified and catapulted into action now. Tomorrow may be too late! (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

If Brexit happens, it will constitute a real test of EU’s longevity

brexit-bill

Brexit Bill, News on Brexit Bill, stories on Brexit Bill, articles on Brexit Bill, Brexit Bill stories at Wion, Brexit Bill news, Brexit Bill latest news

brexit bill