<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/brexit-i-dont-want-to-leave-eu-without-a-deal-pm-theresa-may-to-lawmakers-193765">British Prime Minister Theresa May</a> won parliament's backing on Tuesday to renegotiate her Brexit deal — a major policy reversal that sets up a new standoff with the EU after it ruled out any change.

May's dramatic decision to abandon a pact she herself sealed with the 27 EU leaders at a summit last month came with Britain on course to crash out of the bloc after 46 years in a blaze of political and economic chaos on March 29.

The pound quickly fell on fears of a no-deal scenario as MPs voted through an amendment saying they would only support a divorce deal if its controversial "backstop" clause to keep the Irish border open was removed.

A spokesman for EU leader Donald Tusk said the deal was "not open for renegotiation" while French President Emmanuel Macron said it was the "best agreement possible".

MPs also voted in favour of a non-binding measure that "rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement".

But they failed to vote through a more important plan — backed by European supporters — that would have tried to force through a Brexit delay if no new deal with the EU emerged by February 26.

May now faces a formidable challenge convincing Brussels to re-open talks that took 18 excruciating months to conclude.

She said parliament's approval of the backstop amendment gave her the "mandate" to "seek to obtain legally binding changes to the withdrawal agreement".

But she conceded that there was "limited appetite" in the EU for renegotiation.

"It won't be easy," said May. "But in contrast to a fortnight ago, this house has made it clear what it needs to approve the withdrawal agreement."

'Alternative arrangement' 
Parliament on January 15 voted against the draft deal by a crushing margin.

That significantly raised the risk that Britain's departure without a plan on March 29 will create trade and economic disruptions on both sides of the Channel.

Brexit hardliners from May's Conservative party think the backstop -- created to keep the border open with Ireland -- could see Britain indefinitely tied to EU trade rules.

The winning amendment calls for the backstop to be replaced with "alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border" -- vague wording that did not pin May to any specific approach.

- Playing for time? - 
Yet analysts struggled to see how May could convince her EU counterparts to agree to any changes.

"The only strategy I can see behind all this is the prime minister uses this to finally prove to all but her most recalcitrant backbenchers that the backstop cannot be renegotiated," King's College London professor Anand Menon said.

"She is going to have to come back definitely and say this deal isn't on offer," Menon said.

University College London professor Morten Ravn agreed that May appeared to be playing for time.

"May won support for an amendment that she probably expects she cannot deliver on in the hope that parliament will support her deal last minute in order to avoid no-deal Brexit," Ravn told AFP.

May promised to give MPs a chance to vote on what happens next on February 14 should she fail to win a new agreement over the course of the next two weeks.

'Nothing changes' 
May already tried and failed to wrest new concessions from Brussels during a difficult summit last month that exposed her weak negotiating position -- and the European Union's resolve.

EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier's deputy Sabine Weyand on Monday remarked that the current political debate in Britain felt "like Groundhog Day".

She said Britain risked crashing out of the EU without a deal "by accident" because London cannot decide what it wants.

Following Tuesday's votes, Irish foreign minister Simon Coveney said the he hoped the backstop would "never be used" or replaced quickly by a new trade agreement.

"But it is necessary and tonight's developments at Westminster do nothing to change this," Coveney tweeted.

British Prime Minister Theresa May won parliament's backing on Tuesday to renegotiate her Brexit deal — a major policy reversal that sets up a new standoff with the EU after it ruled out any change.

British Prime Minister Theresa May won parliament's backing on Tuesday to renegotiate her Brexit deal — a major policy reversal that sets up a new standoff with the EU after it ruled out any change. May's dramatic decision to abandon a pact she herself sealed with the 27 EU leaders at a summit last month came with Britain on course to crash out of the bloc after 46 years in a blaze of political and economic chaos on March 29. The pound quickly fell on fears of a no-deal scenario as MPs voted through an amendment saying they would only support a divorce deal if its controversial "backstop" clause to keep the Irish border open was removed. A spokesman for EU leader Donald Tusk said the deal was "not open for renegotiation" while French President Emmanuel Macron said it was the "best agreement possible". MPs also voted in favour of a non-binding measure that "rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement". But they failed to vote through a more important plan — backed by European supporters — that would have tried to force through a Brexit delay if no new deal with the EU emerged by February 26. May now faces a formidable challenge convincing Brussels to re-open talks that took 18 excruciating months to conclude. She said parliament's approval of the backstop amendment gave her the "mandate" to "seek to obtain legally binding changes to the withdrawal agreement". But she conceded that there was "limited appetite" in the EU for renegotiation. "It won't be easy," said May. "But in contrast to a fortnight ago, this house has made it clear what it needs to approve the withdrawal agreement." 'Alternative arrangement' Parliament on January 15 voted against the draft deal by a crushing margin. That significantly raised the risk that Britain's departure without a plan on March 29 will create trade and economic disruptions on both sides of the Channel. Brexit hardliners from May's Conservative party think the backstop -- created to keep the border open with Ireland -- could see Britain indefinitely tied to EU trade rules. The winning amendment calls for the backstop to be replaced with "alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border" -- vague wording that did not pin May to any specific approach. - Playing for time? - Yet analysts struggled to see how May could convince her EU counterparts to agree to any changes. "The only strategy I can see behind all this is the prime minister uses this to finally prove to all but her most recalcitrant backbenchers that the backstop cannot be renegotiated," King's College London professor Anand Menon said. "She is going to have to come back definitely and say this deal isn't on offer," Menon said. University College London professor Morten Ravn agreed that May appeared to be playing for time. "May won support for an amendment that she probably expects she cannot deliver on in the hope that parliament will support her deal last minute in order to avoid no-deal Brexit," Ravn told AFP. May promised to give MPs a chance to vote on what happens next on February 14 should she fail to win a new agreement over the course of the next two weeks. 'Nothing changes' May already tried and failed to wrest new concessions from Brussels during a difficult summit last month that exposed her weak negotiating position -- and the European Union's resolve. EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier's deputy Sabine Weyand on Monday remarked that the current political debate in Britain felt "like Groundhog Day". She said Britain risked crashing out of the EU without a deal "by accident" because London cannot decide what it wants. Following Tuesday's votes, Irish foreign minister Simon Coveney said the he hoped the backstop would "never be used" or replaced quickly by a new trade agreement. "But it is necessary and tonight's developments at Westminster do nothing to change this," Coveney tweeted.

UK MPs vote to renegotiate Brexit, EU says it's not happening

PM Theresa May told the British Parliament today that she did <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/eu-has-a-brexit-message-for-pm-may-irish-backstop-is-our-red-line-193501">not want to leave the European Union(EU)</a> without an agreement as it would "disrupt lives and hurt the economy" while asserting that holding a general election would be a "waste of time".

"I accept that this house does not want the deal that I put before it in the form that it currently exist, the vote was decisive and I listened. So the world know what this house does not want. Today we need to send an emphatic message about what we do want," May told parliamentarians during her speech.

Britain is scheduled to leave the European Union on March 29, however, May's plan was rejected by parliamentarians on January 15 leading to a stalemate.

"I do&nbsp;not want to leave the EU without a deal because that would hurt our economy and disrupt people's lives. It does not want to hold a general election because it would waste time, increase division and solve none of the problems we face," she said, adding,"this house renewed its confidence in her Majesty's government a fortnight ago. Neither do I see anything approaching a majority across the house to hold a second referendum."

MPs are set to vote on measures that could include preventing a no-deal Brexit, delaying Brexit, changing the negotiated deal and even seizing control of the entire process. The proposed measure put forward for Tuesday's votes calls for the backstop to be replaced with "alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border" on the island of Ireland.

"I think there is a willingness on the other side in terms of the European Union to agree a deal with the United Kingdom. But what they clearly said when the meaningful vote was lost, they wanted to know what it was the UK wanted to see happening in relation to the deal. That's an opportunity that we have today," May told parliamentarians.

"This amendment will give the mandate I need to negotiate with Brussels an arrangement that commands a majority in this house," May said. "What I'm talking about is not a further exchange of letters, but a significant and legally-binding change to the Withdrawal Agreement."

Before the Parliament opened, British stocks jumped Tuesday and the pound was firmer ahead of the votes.

London's benchmark FTSE 100 index was 1.3 per cent higher in midday deals, while the pound held recently won ground versus the dollar.

"Today we have the chance to show the European Union what it will take to get a deal through this House of Commons. What it will take to move beyond the confusion and division and uncertainty that now hangs over us and onto the bright new close open relationship that we want to build with our European friends in the years ahead," May said.

PM Theresa May told the British Parliament today that she did not want to leave the European Union(EU) without an agreement as it would "disrupt lives and hurt the economy" while asserting that holding a general election would be a "waste of time".

PM Theresa May told the British Parliament today that she did not want to leave the European Union(EU) without an agreement as it would "disrupt lives and hurt the economy" while asserting that holding a general election would be a "waste of time". "I accept that this house does not want the deal that I put before it in the form that it currently exist, the vote was decisive and I listened. So the world know what this house does not want. Today we need to send an emphatic message about what we do want," May told parliamentarians during her speech. Britain is scheduled to leave the European Union on March 29, however, May's plan was rejected by parliamentarians on January 15 leading to a stalemate. "I do not want to leave the EU without a deal because that would hurt our economy and disrupt people's lives. It does not want to hold a general election because it would waste time, increase division and solve none of the problems we face," she said, adding,"this house renewed its confidence in her Majesty's government a fortnight ago. Neither do I see anything approaching a majority across the house to hold a second referendum." MPs are set to vote on measures that could include preventing a no-deal Brexit, delaying Brexit, changing the negotiated deal and even seizing control of the entire process. The proposed measure put forward for Tuesday's votes calls for the backstop to be replaced with "alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border" on the island of Ireland. "I think there is a willingness on the other side in terms of the European Union to agree a deal with the United Kingdom. But what they clearly said when the meaningful vote was lost, they wanted to know what it was the UK wanted to see happening in relation to the deal. That's an opportunity that we have today," May told parliamentarians. "This amendment will give the mandate I need to negotiate with Brussels an arrangement that commands a majority in this house," May said. "What I'm talking about is not a further exchange of letters, but a significant and legally-binding change to the Withdrawal Agreement." Before the Parliament opened, British stocks jumped Tuesday and the pound was firmer ahead of the votes. London's benchmark FTSE 100 index was 1.3 per cent higher in midday deals, while the pound held recently won ground versus the dollar. "Today we have the chance to show the European Union what it will take to get a deal through this House of Commons. What it will take to move beyond the confusion and division and uncertainty that now hangs over us and onto the bright new close open relationship that we want to build with our European friends in the years ahead," May said.

Brexit: I don't want to leave EU without a deal, PM Theresa May to lawmakers

Gravitas: Maduro denounces election call, says he is ready to talk

By Agelos Delis, &nbsp;Karen Jackson and Oleksandr Shepotylo 
 
The current impasse in the British parliament has increased the probability of ending up with one of two extreme outcomes: no Brexit or no deal. While significant attention has focused on understanding the potential impact of a hard Brexit on the income of people in the UK, much less is known about the impact on the rest of the EU.

We know that the UK has a large trade deficit with some big and influential EU economies such as Germany. Therefore, some have argued that this will result in these countries influencing the EU negotiating a position and eventually offering a relatively generous deal to the UK. But our calculations find the opposite to be true.

Building on recent research by two of us into different Brexit scenarios, we looked at how a no-deal Brexit might affect the rest of the EU. We also assessed what would happen if the EU broke up entirely and all countries were left to trade on WTO-only rules. The magnitude of this gives us a sense of how important it is for the EU to stand firm in negotiations against the UK.

Our research uses a gravity model, which is widely used in the international trade literature. Many economists consider it to be the best tool for conducting applied trade policy. In essence, it is based on the idea that two countries trade in proportion to the size of their economies and trade less the further away they are to one another because this is more costly. As well as being firmly rooted in economic theory, it captures many features of the real world without being overcomplicated and predicts trade flows remarkably well.

Effect on the EU27

Our new results indicate that all EU27 countries will lose out from a disorderly Brexit, but that losses are not distributed evenly between the rest of the EU countries. Roughly speaking, there are three groups of countries.

The country that loses the most in terms of GDP, around 1 per cent, is Ireland. This is expected given its geographic proximity, common language and historical ties with the UK. The second largest decline in GDP from a no-deal Brexit is observed for Cyprus, at around 0.2 per cent of its GDP. This result is surprising to some extent given the distance of Cyprus from the UK. But it could be explained by common institutions (Cyprus was a colony of the UK until 1960) as well as the close historical and business ties between the two islands.

After Ireland and Cyprus, the vast majority of EU countries will face a decline of their GDP from 0.18 per cent (Spain) to just below 0.1 per cent (Croatia). And the last group of EU countries, from Central and Eastern Europe, will have among the lowest decline in GDP. Hungary with 0.08 per cent and Austria with 0.03 per cent of GDP.

It is interesting to note that the four biggest EU27 countries will face a small drop in their GDP in the case of a No Deal Brexit scenario. Germany faces a 0.16 per cent drop; France, 0.17 per cent; Italy, 0.14 per cent, and Spain, 0.18 per cent. Hence, the overall effect on the EU27 will be a fairly small decline in their combined GDP – a weighted average of 0.17 per cent. In comparison, we find that a no-deal Brexit will reduce the UK’s GDP by a staggering 5.8 per cent of GDP.

These results can easily be understood when we consider the fact that each individual EU country trades much more with the rest of the EU as a whole than just the UK. Consequently, each remaining EU country will have much more to lose in the event of the UK getting a deal that includes the benefits of EU membership without any of the costs, as this would undermine the future existence of the EU.

If the EU breaks down

To further understand the potential impact of a collapse of the EU project, we present evidence on what will be the effect for each individual EU country. Here, the assumption is that the EU breaks down and all EU countries begin trading under WTO rules.

In such a scenario, the GDP of the EU countries would fall by 4.7 per cent on average, with Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands experiencing the highest declines of 5.5 per cent, 5.4 per cent and 5.3 per cent of their GDP respectively. The rest of the countries face similar economic losses from 5.2 per cent of GDP for Austria to just below 4 per cent for Greece. The lowest loss in terms of GDP is for Cyprus with a 3.2 per cent decline. Note that in this scenario, the UK’s GDP will be reduced by 4.5 per cent.

From the above analysis, it is apparent that EU countries have much more to lose from the disintegration of the EU than Brexit. Following the gravity model, this is because countries tend to lose more in terms of international trade, and consequently their GDP, when their deep economic ties are cut with their bigger neighbours.

Hence, it is no surprise that the EU27 has shown a consistent and unified stance towards resisting the UK’s demands during the Brexit process. On this basis, there is little evidence to support the idea that EU negotiators will be forthcoming with a last minute, significantly more favourable Brexit package.

(Agelos Delis is Lecturer in Economics, Aston University; Karen Jackson Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Westminster; Oleksandr Shepotylo Lecturer in Economics, Aston University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-a-no-deal-brexit-would-be-less-costly-for-the-eu-than-the-uk-110407">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

By Agelos Delis, Karen Jackson and Oleksandr Shepotylo The current impasse in the British parliament has increased the probability of ending up with one of two extreme outcomes: no Brexit or no deal.

By Agelos Delis, Karen Jackson and Oleksandr Shepotylo The current impasse in the British parliament has increased the probability of ending up with one of two extreme outcomes: no Brexit or no deal. While significant attention has focused on understanding the potential impact of a hard Brexit on the income of people in the UK, much less is known about the impact on the rest of the EU. We know that the UK has a large trade deficit with some big and influential EU economies such as Germany. Therefore, some have argued that this will result in these countries influencing the EU negotiating a position and eventually offering a relatively generous deal to the UK. But our calculations find the opposite to be true. Building on recent research by two of us into different Brexit scenarios, we looked at how a no-deal Brexit might affect the rest of the EU. We also assessed what would happen if the EU broke up entirely and all countries were left to trade on WTO-only rules. The magnitude of this gives us a sense of how important it is for the EU to stand firm in negotiations against the UK. Our research uses a gravity model, which is widely used in the international trade literature. Many economists consider it to be the best tool for conducting applied trade policy. In essence, it is based on the idea that two countries trade in proportion to the size of their economies and trade less the further away they are to one another because this is more costly. As well as being firmly rooted in economic theory, it captures many features of the real world without being overcomplicated and predicts trade flows remarkably well. Effect on the EU27 Our new results indicate that all EU27 countries will lose out from a disorderly Brexit, but that losses are not distributed evenly between the rest of the EU countries. Roughly speaking, there are three groups of countries. The country that loses the most in terms of GDP, around 1 per cent, is Ireland. This is expected given its geographic proximity, common language and historical ties with the UK. The second largest decline in GDP from a no-deal Brexit is observed for Cyprus, at around 0.2 per cent of its GDP. This result is surprising to some extent given the distance of Cyprus from the UK. But it could be explained by common institutions (Cyprus was a colony of the UK until 1960) as well as the close historical and business ties between the two islands. After Ireland and Cyprus, the vast majority of EU countries will face a decline of their GDP from 0.18 per cent (Spain) to just below 0.1 per cent (Croatia). And the last group of EU countries, from Central and Eastern Europe, will have among the lowest decline in GDP. Hungary with 0.08 per cent and Austria with 0.03 per cent of GDP. It is interesting to note that the four biggest EU27 countries will face a small drop in their GDP in the case of a No Deal Brexit scenario. Germany faces a 0.16 per cent drop; France, 0.17 per cent; Italy, 0.14 per cent, and Spain, 0.18 per cent. Hence, the overall effect on the EU27 will be a fairly small decline in their combined GDP – a weighted average of 0.17 per cent. In comparison, we find that a no-deal Brexit will reduce the UK’s GDP by a staggering 5.8 per cent of GDP. These results can easily be understood when we consider the fact that each individual EU country trades much more with the rest of the EU as a whole than just the UK. Consequently, each remaining EU country will have much more to lose in the event of the UK getting a deal that includes the benefits of EU membership without any of the costs, as this would undermine the future existence of the EU. If the EU breaks down To further understand the potential impact of a collapse of the EU project, we present evidence on what will be the effect for each individual EU country. Here, the assumption is that the EU breaks down and all EU countries begin trading under WTO rules. In such a scenario, the GDP of the EU countries would fall by 4.7 per cent on average, with Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands experiencing the highest declines of 5.5 per cent, 5.4 per cent and 5.3 per cent of their GDP respectively. The rest of the countries face similar economic losses from 5.2 per cent of GDP for Austria to just below 4 per cent for Greece. The lowest loss in terms of GDP is for Cyprus with a 3.2 per cent decline. Note that in this scenario, the UK’s GDP will be reduced by 4.5 per cent. From the above analysis, it is apparent that EU countries have much more to lose from the disintegration of the EU than Brexit. Following the gravity model, this is because countries tend to lose more in terms of international trade, and consequently their GDP, when their deep economic ties are cut with their bigger neighbours. Hence, it is no surprise that the EU27 has shown a consistent and unified stance towards resisting the UK’s demands during the Brexit process. On this basis, there is little evidence to support the idea that EU negotiators will be forthcoming with a last minute, significantly more favourable Brexit package. (Agelos Delis is Lecturer in Economics, Aston University; Karen Jackson Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Westminster; Oleksandr Shepotylo Lecturer in Economics, Aston 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)

Why a no-deal Brexit would be less costly for the EU than the UK

By Kenneth Armstrong

In her statement to the House of Commons, the UK prime minister has failed to offer any real clarity on where her government’s Brexit policy is heading. Rather than unveiling a Plan B, she set out Plan May with some procedural bells and whistles.

Number 10 followed her statement by saying there will not be another meaningful vote on Brexit until February.

Significantly, the prime minister has refused to take a no-deal Brexit off the agenda. Following parliament’s decisive vote not to approve the texts of the withdrawal agreement and political declaration negotiated between the UK and the EU back in November, a no-deal Brexit is now the default position unless something else changes.

Three things could change. First, with the March 29 deadline looming without a Brexit deal, parliament could decide to shift the goalposts by requiring the government to seek an extension of the Article 50 negotiation period. This procedural device was originally proposed in a private member’s bill promoted by Conservative MP Nick Boles, but it is likely to be superseded by an alternative proposal from Labour MP Yvette Cooper in which a refusal by parliament to approve the texts agreed between the UK and the EU would lead to a request to extend the negotiation period.

In terms of Article 50, the UK can make such a request, but it still needs the unanimous consent of the EU27. Assuming that consent was given, it would simply delay a no-deal Brexit. Something would have to happen during this extension to change the parliamentary arithmetic to produce a majority to back a deal. The most obvious way of doing that would be if a general election was held, forcing the political parties to lay out their visions of the UK’s future relationship with the EU. Former Conservative leader William Hague has been talking up the possibility of an early election. The risk, however, would be that a divided nation produced a hung parliament with no better consensus on what is in the national interest.

A different possibility would be to make revocation of the Article 50 withdrawal notification the new default. This wouldn’t just take a no-deal Brexit off the table. Any failure by parliament to approve a deal would mean that parliament instructed the government to bring the withdrawal process to an end. Following a ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union in December, this is a real alternative. The problem is that this goes further than changing the default on Brexit; it reverses Brexit itself. It is hard to see how this could occur without another referendum. And, as the prime minister made clear in her statement, she believes that no majority exists in the House of Commons for another referendum.

But even if a referendum were to take place following parliament’s failure to approve a deal, the referendum would be a straight choice between remaining in the EU and a no-deal Brexit. So even in this scenario, a no-deal Brexit could still occur.

The third option is to focus on substance. Here the prime minister identified the Irish backstop, the future relationship, and protecting social, environmental and citizens rights as areas where the action might need to be taken. Leaving aside the issues of rights where the UK is in a position to take unilateral action, any “Plan B” would need to address the Irish Protocol contained in the withdrawal agreement and the future relationship set out in the political declaration. Changes to the Irish backstop means opening up a legal text which the EU has said it will not do. Almost all the negotiation time in 2018 was spent trying to resolve this issue.

But even in terms of the hard numbers, flipping the votes of the DUP and Brexiteers who objected to the backstop is unlikely to give the prime minister the majority she would need. She would still need a wider coalition to either accept the deal or at least abstain rather than voting against it. That’s why attention still needs to be paid to the future relationship.

What the prime minister has offered, however, is simply to involve parliament and voices outside of parliament more closely in shaping the UK’s position on the future relationship with the EU, with the important caveat that it is “government’s responsibility to negotiate” with the EU. In short, while parliament and the devolved administrations may expect to be better engaged, the government does not intend to hand control of Brexit over to MPs. It still appears to be Plan May.

(Kenneth Armstrong is Professor, Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/theres-no-brexit-plan-b-this-is-still-plan-may-110140">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

By Kenneth Armstrong In her statement to the House of Commons, the UK prime minister has failed to offer any real clarity on where her government’s Brexit policy is heading.

By Kenneth Armstrong In her statement to the House of Commons, the UK prime minister has failed to offer any real clarity on where her government’s Brexit policy is heading. Rather than unveiling a Plan B, she set out Plan May with some procedural bells and whistles. Number 10 followed her statement by saying there will not be another meaningful vote on Brexit until February. Significantly, the prime minister has refused to take a no-deal Brexit off the agenda. Following parliament’s decisive vote not to approve the texts of the withdrawal agreement and political declaration negotiated between the UK and the EU back in November, a no-deal Brexit is now the default position unless something else changes. Three things could change. First, with the March 29 deadline looming without a Brexit deal, parliament could decide to shift the goalposts by requiring the government to seek an extension of the Article 50 negotiation period. This procedural device was originally proposed in a private member’s bill promoted by Conservative MP Nick Boles, but it is likely to be superseded by an alternative proposal from Labour MP Yvette Cooper in which a refusal by parliament to approve the texts agreed between the UK and the EU would lead to a request to extend the negotiation period. In terms of Article 50, the UK can make such a request, but it still needs the unanimous consent of the EU27. Assuming that consent was given, it would simply delay a no-deal Brexit. Something would have to happen during this extension to change the parliamentary arithmetic to produce a majority to back a deal. The most obvious way of doing that would be if a general election was held, forcing the political parties to lay out their visions of the UK’s future relationship with the EU. Former Conservative leader William Hague has been talking up the possibility of an early election. The risk, however, would be that a divided nation produced a hung parliament with no better consensus on what is in the national interest. A different possibility would be to make revocation of the Article 50 withdrawal notification the new default. This wouldn’t just take a no-deal Brexit off the table. Any failure by parliament to approve a deal would mean that parliament instructed the government to bring the withdrawal process to an end. Following a ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union in December, this is a real alternative. The problem is that this goes further than changing the default on Brexit; it reverses Brexit itself. It is hard to see how this could occur without another referendum. And, as the prime minister made clear in her statement, she believes that no majority exists in the House of Commons for another referendum. But even if a referendum were to take place following parliament’s failure to approve a deal, the referendum would be a straight choice between remaining in the EU and a no-deal Brexit. So even in this scenario, a no-deal Brexit could still occur. The third option is to focus on substance. Here the prime minister identified the Irish backstop, the future relationship, and protecting social, environmental and citizens rights as areas where the action might need to be taken. Leaving aside the issues of rights where the UK is in a position to take unilateral action, any “Plan B” would need to address the Irish Protocol contained in the withdrawal agreement and the future relationship set out in the political declaration. Changes to the Irish backstop means opening up a legal text which the EU has said it will not do. Almost all the negotiation time in 2018 was spent trying to resolve this issue. But even in terms of the hard numbers, flipping the votes of the DUP and Brexiteers who objected to the backstop is unlikely to give the prime minister the majority she would need. She would still need a wider coalition to either accept the deal or at least abstain rather than voting against it. That’s why attention still needs to be paid to the future relationship. What the prime minister has offered, however, is simply to involve parliament and voices outside of parliament more closely in shaping the UK’s position on the future relationship with the EU, with the important caveat that it is “government’s responsibility to negotiate” with the EU. In short, while parliament and the devolved administrations may expect to be better engaged, the government does not intend to hand control of Brexit over to MPs. It still appears to be Plan May. (Kenneth Armstrong is Professor, Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge) (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)

There’s no Brexit Plan B – this is still Plan May

These are extraordinary times in British politics. In a matter of hours, the same Conservative Party MPs and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) who had rejected British Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit plan came to her rescue and saved her government from falling in a no-confidence motion brought by the Opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. May’s plan for an amicable divorce from the European Union (EU) was overwhelmingly rejected by the British Parliament, giving her government one of the worst defeats in British political history. This plan, which was aimed at bringing about an orderly departure from the EU on March 29, and setting up a 21-month transition period to negotiate a free trade deal was rejected by 432 to 202 votes. This was a plan which was almost two years in the making with May putting her career on the line. But it was clear that she failed in convincing Parliament that it was the best option for the nation.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn quickly came back with a no-confidence vote against May’s government, arguing that May’s “zombie” administration had lost the right to govern. But this time May got back her support base from the rebel Tories and the DUP, winning the vote by a margin of 19. May has responded by underscoring her commitment to “continue to work to deliver on the solemn promise to the people of this country to deliver on the result of the referendum and leave the European Union”.

But the road forward remains as complicated as ever for May and for Britain. After her victory in the no-confidence vote, May had called on MPs to “put self-interest aside” and “act in the national interest”, acknowledging that it “will not be an easy task”. Consensus certainly will not be easy to come by as the British polity remains at its most polarised today. May now has to present a new EU withdrawal plan to Parliament by January 21 ahead of a vote by MPs eight days later. And political confabulations have started in right earnest though without any real sense of direction.

Meanwhile, the rest of the EU is moving ahead with contingency planning. European Commission has underlined that it is “taking this very seriously now as the possibility of a no-deal Brexit is becoming more possible”. French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe has said a no-deal Brexit looks “less and less unlikely” while German Economy Minister Peter Altmeier has warned “everyone in Europe would lose” from the UK leaving without an agreement. Ireland, which has the closest links to the UK of all the EU States, is now solely focused on measures covering key sectors such as health, communications, education, finance, employment and justice.

British economy’s health will be one of the most significant casualties of the present crisis. The International Monetary Fund has made it clear that Brexit without a deal is the “most significant near-term risk to the UK economy”. And in a public letter, more than 170 leading business figures have called for Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn to back another referendum on withdrawal from the European Union “to stop us crashing out of the EU with no deal at all”.

The open political divide in the UK is causing a sense of bewilderment all around. On the one hand, opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has refused to negotiate with May unless a no-deal Brexit is ruled out, on the other Conservative Party chairman Brandon Lewis has ruled out discussion on staying in a customs union. Even within May’s Cabinet, there are contending voices and May’s ability to shape a consensus is gravely in doubt. While the Conservatives showed unity over the confidence vote, with all 314 members backing the Prime Minister, the divisions within the party over the way forward with Brexit remain as strong as ever. May has given no indication so far that she will be willing to budge on her “red lines”, thereby ruling out Labour’s demand for a customs union with the EU as there is a fear that such a compromise would lead to further departures from the Cabinet.

In more ways than one, Brexit has been a failed attempt by the Tories to put an end to the internecine warfare within the Party on the issue of the EU. May’s predecessor David Cameron thought that he could end this by winning a referendum on the EU. Instead, he lost and in the process pushed Britain into uncharted waters. For May, the tension between the Parliament as a whole and the Eurosceptics within her own party has been too much to enable her to navigate her way out of this crisis. There is a hardcore group within the Tories for whom a hard Brexit is more important than continuing in the government. And it is this group that will shape May’s future and in more ways than one, the future of Britain. An exercise which was supposed to be an absolute manifestation of a democratic mandate now has become hostage to a few Tory MPs who are hell bent on shaping the trajectory of British political relations with the rest of Europe.

Whatever the outcome of this process, the Britain which will emerge out of this political churn will be one quite distinct in its political complexion than the one we are used to.

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-brexit-a-messy-separation-2709878">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

These are extraordinary times in British politics. In a matter of hours, the same Conservative Party MPs and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) who had rejected British Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit plan came to her rescue and saved her government from falling in a no-confidence motion brought by the Opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

These are extraordinary times in British politics. In a matter of hours, the same Conservative Party MPs and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) who had rejected British Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit plan came to her rescue and saved her government from falling in a no-confidence motion brought by the Opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. May’s plan for an amicable divorce from the European Union (EU) was overwhelmingly rejected by the British Parliament, giving her government one of the worst defeats in British political history. This plan, which was aimed at bringing about an orderly departure from the EU on March 29, and setting up a 21-month transition period to negotiate a free trade deal was rejected by 432 to 202 votes. This was a plan which was almost two years in the making with May putting her career on the line. But it was clear that she failed in convincing Parliament that it was the best option for the nation. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn quickly came back with a no-confidence vote against May’s government, arguing that May’s “zombie” administration had lost the right to govern. But this time May got back her support base from the rebel Tories and the DUP, winning the vote by a margin of 19. May has responded by underscoring her commitment to “continue to work to deliver on the solemn promise to the people of this country to deliver on the result of the referendum and leave the European Union”. But the road forward remains as complicated as ever for May and for Britain. After her victory in the no-confidence vote, May had called on MPs to “put self-interest aside” and “act in the national interest”, acknowledging that it “will not be an easy task”. Consensus certainly will not be easy to come by as the British polity remains at its most polarised today. May now has to present a new EU withdrawal plan to Parliament by January 21 ahead of a vote by MPs eight days later. And political confabulations have started in right earnest though without any real sense of direction. Meanwhile, the rest of the EU is moving ahead with contingency planning. European Commission has underlined that it is “taking this very seriously now as the possibility of a no-deal Brexit is becoming more possible”. French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe has said a no-deal Brexit looks “less and less unlikely” while German Economy Minister Peter Altmeier has warned “everyone in Europe would lose” from the UK leaving without an agreement. Ireland, which has the closest links to the UK of all the EU States, is now solely focused on measures covering key sectors such as health, communications, education, finance, employment and justice. British economy’s health will be one of the most significant casualties of the present crisis. The International Monetary Fund has made it clear that Brexit without a deal is the “most significant near-term risk to the UK economy”. And in a public letter, more than 170 leading business figures have called for Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn to back another referendum on withdrawal from the European Union “to stop us crashing out of the EU with no deal at all”. The open political divide in the UK is causing a sense of bewilderment all around. On the one hand, opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has refused to negotiate with May unless a no-deal Brexit is ruled out, on the other Conservative Party chairman Brandon Lewis has ruled out discussion on staying in a customs union. Even within May’s Cabinet, there are contending voices and May’s ability to shape a consensus is gravely in doubt. While the Conservatives showed unity over the confidence vote, with all 314 members backing the Prime Minister, the divisions within the party over the way forward with Brexit remain as strong as ever. May has given no indication so far that she will be willing to budge on her “red lines”, thereby ruling out Labour’s demand for a customs union with the EU as there is a fear that such a compromise would lead to further departures from the Cabinet. In more ways than one, Brexit has been a failed attempt by the Tories to put an end to the internecine warfare within the Party on the issue of the EU. May’s predecessor David Cameron thought that he could end this by winning a referendum on the EU. Instead, he lost and in the process pushed Britain into uncharted waters. For May, the tension between the Parliament as a whole and the Eurosceptics within her own party has been too much to enable her to navigate her way out of this crisis. There is a hardcore group within the Tories for whom a hard Brexit is more important than continuing in the government. And it is this group that will shape May’s future and in more ways than one, the future of Britain. An exercise which was supposed to be an absolute manifestation of a democratic mandate now has become hostage to a few Tory MPs who are hell bent on shaping the trajectory of British political relations with the rest of Europe. Whatever the outcome of this process, the Britain which will emerge out of this political churn will be one quite distinct in its political complexion than the one we are used to. (This article was originally published on The DNA. 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: A messy separation

The International Monetary Fund on Monday cut its <a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/imf-says-trade-war-already-hurting-asia-may-cut-global-growth-forecasts-184777">world economic growth forecasts</a> for 2019 and 2020, due to weakness in Europe and some emerging markets, and said failure to resolve trade tensions could further destabilise a slowing global economy.

In its second downgrade in three months, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/america-first-imfs-lagarde-urges-us-others-to-reject-dystopian-path-181545">the global lender also cited</a> a bigger-than-expected slowdown in China's economy and a possible "No Deal" Brexit as risks to its outlook, saying these could worsen market turbulence in financial markets.

The IMF predicted the global economy to grow at 3.5 per cent in 2019 and 3.6 per cent in 2020, down 0.2 and 0.1 percentage point respectively from last October's forecasts.

The new forecasts, released ahead of this week's gathering of world leaders and business executives in the Swiss ski resort of Davos, show that policymakers may need to come up with plans to deal with an end to years of solid global growth.

"Risks to global growth tilt to the downside. An escalation of trade tensions beyond those already incorporated in the forecast remains a key source of risk to the outlook," the IMF said in an update to its World Economic Outlook report.

"Higher trade policy uncertainty and concerns over escalation and retaliation would lower business investment, disrupt supply chains and slow productivity growth. The resulting depressed outlook for corporate profitability could dent financial market sentiment and further dampen growth."

The downgrades reflected signs of weakness in Europe, with its export powerhouse Germany hurt by new fuel emission standards for cars and with Italy under market pressure due to Rome's recent budget standoff with the European Union.

Growth in the euro zone is set to moderate from 1.8 per cent in 2018 to 1.6 per cent in 2019, 0.3 percentage point lower than projected three months ago, the IMF said.

The IMF also cut its 2019 growth forecast for developing countries to 4.5 per cent, down 0.2 percentage point from the previous projection and a slowdown from 4.7 percent in 2018.

"Emerging market and developing economies have been tested by difficult external conditions over the past few months amid trade tensions, rising U.S. interest rates, dollar appreciation, capital outflows, and volatile oil prices," the IMF said.

The IMF maintained its U.S. growth projections of 2.5 per cent this year and 1.8 per cent in 2020, pointing to continued strength in domestic demand.

It also kept its China growth forecast at 6.2 per cent in both 2019 and 2020, but said economic activity could miss expectations if trade tensions persist, even with state efforts to spur growth by boosting fiscal spending and bank lending.

"As seen in 2015–16, concerns about the health of China's economy can trigger abrupt, wide-reaching sell-offs in financial and commodity markets that place its trading partners, commodity exporters, and other emerging markets under pressure," it said.

Britain is expected to achieve 1.5 per cent growth this year though there is uncertainty over the projection, which is based on the assumption of an orderly exit from the EU, the IMF said.

The rare bright spot was Japan, with the IMF revising up its forecast by 0.2 percentage point to 1.1 per cent this year due to an expected boost from the government's spending measures, which aim to offset a scheduled sales-tax hike in October.

The IMF has been urging policymakers to carry out structural reforms while the global economy enjoys solid growth, with its managing director, Christine Lagarde, telling them to "fix the roof while the sun is shining". The IMF has stressed the need to address income inequality and reform the financial sector.

However, as growth momentum peaks and risks to the outlook rise, policymakers must now focus on policies to prevent further slowdowns, the IMF said.

"The main shared policy priority is for countries to resolve cooperatively and quickly their trade disagreements and the resulting policy uncertainty, rather than raising harmful barriers further and destabilizing an already slowing global economy," it added.

The International Monetary Fund on Monday cut its world economic growth forecasts for 2019 and 2020, due to weakness in Europe and some emerging markets, and said failure to resolve trade tensions could further destabilise a slowing global economy.

The International Monetary Fund on Monday cut its world economic growth forecasts for 2019 and 2020, due to weakness in Europe and some emerging markets, and said failure to resolve trade tensions could further destabilise a slowing global economy. In its second downgrade in three months, the global lender also cited a bigger-than-expected slowdown in China's economy and a possible "No Deal" Brexit as risks to its outlook, saying these could worsen market turbulence in financial markets. The IMF predicted the global economy to grow at 3.5 per cent in 2019 and 3.6 per cent in 2020, down 0.2 and 0.1 percentage point respectively from last October's forecasts. The new forecasts, released ahead of this week's gathering of world leaders and business executives in the Swiss ski resort of Davos, show that policymakers may need to come up with plans to deal with an end to years of solid global growth. "Risks to global growth tilt to the downside. An escalation of trade tensions beyond those already incorporated in the forecast remains a key source of risk to the outlook," the IMF said in an update to its World Economic Outlook report. "Higher trade policy uncertainty and concerns over escalation and retaliation would lower business investment, disrupt supply chains and slow productivity growth. The resulting depressed outlook for corporate profitability could dent financial market sentiment and further dampen growth." The downgrades reflected signs of weakness in Europe, with its export powerhouse Germany hurt by new fuel emission standards for cars and with Italy under market pressure due to Rome's recent budget standoff with the European Union. Growth in the euro zone is set to moderate from 1.8 per cent in 2018 to 1.6 per cent in 2019, 0.3 percentage point lower than projected three months ago, the IMF said. The IMF also cut its 2019 growth forecast for developing countries to 4.5 per cent, down 0.2 percentage point from the previous projection and a slowdown from 4.7 percent in 2018. "Emerging market and developing economies have been tested by difficult external conditions over the past few months amid trade tensions, rising U.S. interest rates, dollar appreciation, capital outflows, and volatile oil prices," the IMF said. The IMF maintained its U.S. growth projections of 2.5 per cent this year and 1.8 per cent in 2020, pointing to continued strength in domestic demand. It also kept its China growth forecast at 6.2 per cent in both 2019 and 2020, but said economic activity could miss expectations if trade tensions persist, even with state efforts to spur growth by boosting fiscal spending and bank lending. "As seen in 2015–16, concerns about the health of China's economy can trigger abrupt, wide-reaching sell-offs in financial and commodity markets that place its trading partners, commodity exporters, and other emerging markets under pressure," it said. Britain is expected to achieve 1.5 per cent growth this year though there is uncertainty over the projection, which is based on the assumption of an orderly exit from the EU, the IMF said. The rare bright spot was Japan, with the IMF revising up its forecast by 0.2 percentage point to 1.1 per cent this year due to an expected boost from the government's spending measures, which aim to offset a scheduled sales-tax hike in October. The IMF has been urging policymakers to carry out structural reforms while the global economy enjoys solid growth, with its managing director, Christine Lagarde, telling them to "fix the roof while the sun is shining". The IMF has stressed the need to address income inequality and reform the financial sector. However, as growth momentum peaks and risks to the outlook rise, policymakers must now focus on policies to prevent further slowdowns, the IMF said. "The main shared policy priority is for countries to resolve cooperatively and quickly their trade disagreements and the resulting policy uncertainty, rather than raising harmful barriers further and destabilizing an already slowing global economy," it added.

IMF cuts global growth forecast due to US-China trade tensions

<a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/european-union-says-doubts-remain-over-dr-congo-election-result-191647&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiJw5rh6_7fAhXEsI8KHXjUBbgQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw1fkcT7sfCia_Q3VyY2QMf9">The EU</a> on Monday warned <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/nicaragua-expels-international-human-rights-missions-185454&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjd6-_z6_7fAhVKL48KHZDlC7cQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw2Lq_EJw85fVdRDGFom2STX">Nicaragua</a> it was ready to impose sanctions over the crisis-hit country's crackdown on media and civil society groups, saying fundamental rights were being abused.

The government of President Daniel Ortega has revoked human rights groups' permits, raided the offices of independent media and thrown out international inspection missions.

EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels condemned the moves, which follow a tough clampdown launched in response to street protests.

"Recent measures targeting civil society organisations and independent media constitute another blow to democracy, human rights and civic freedoms aggravating the political and social crisis," the 28 ministers said.

The recent actions by the Ortega government were creating an environment where basic rights such as freedom of expression and fair trials were under threat, they said.

"The EU will continue to monitor the situation closely and underlines its readiness to use all its policy instruments to contribute to a peaceful negotiated way out of the current crisis and react to further deterioration of human rights and rule of law," the statement said — paving the way for possible future sanctions.

Rights groups say that since anti-government protests began in Managua in April, more than 320 people have been killed in the crackdown, and 600 arrested, while thousands more have fled the country.

Last week a group of young protesters defied a government ban on demonstrations to take to the streets but were rapidly dispersed by police.

And on Friday, leading newspaper La Prensa ran a blank front page in protest at the government blocking deliveries of paper and ink. 
&nbsp;

The EU on Monday warned Nicaragua it was ready to impose sanctions over the crisis-hit country's crackdown on media and civil society groups, saying fundamental rights were being abused.

The EU on Monday warned Nicaragua it was ready to impose sanctions over the crisis-hit country's crackdown on media and civil society groups, saying fundamental rights were being abused. The government of President Daniel Ortega has revoked human rights groups' permits, raided the offices of independent media and thrown out international inspection missions. EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels condemned the moves, which follow a tough clampdown launched in response to street protests. "Recent measures targeting civil society organisations and independent media constitute another blow to democracy, human rights and civic freedoms aggravating the political and social crisis," the 28 ministers said. The recent actions by the Ortega government were creating an environment where basic rights such as freedom of expression and fair trials were under threat, they said. "The EU will continue to monitor the situation closely and underlines its readiness to use all its policy instruments to contribute to a peaceful negotiated way out of the current crisis and react to further deterioration of human rights and rule of law," the statement said — paving the way for possible future sanctions. Rights groups say that since anti-government protests began in Managua in April, more than 320 people have been killed in the crackdown, and 600 arrested, while thousands more have fled the country. Last week a group of young protesters defied a government ban on demonstrations to take to the streets but were rapidly dispersed by police. And on Friday, leading newspaper La Prensa ran a blank front page in protest at the government blocking deliveries of paper and ink.

European Union warns Nicaragua of sanctions over rights abuses

Former British prime minister John Major <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/we-must-all-work-together-for-brexit-theresa-may-after-winning-confidence-vote-190827">urged Theresa May</a> on Saturday to drop her "red lines" on Brexit or allow parliament to find a way forward to avoid a damaging no-<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-accused-of-allowing-anti-brexit-fake-news-on-its-platform-191338">deal departure from the European Union</a> in March.

Major said he compromised on key decisions on the Northern Irish peace process and the first Gulf War while prime minister between 1990 and 1997, and May should do the same after her Brexit plan was rejected by a huge majority in parliament.

"Her deal is dead and I don’t think honestly that tinkering with it is going to make very much difference if any difference at all," Major, who campaigned to stay in the EU ahead of the 2016 referendum, told BBC Radio.

May is due to tell parliament on Monday how she intends to proceed on Brexit. Lawmakers may then propose alternatives to see if any could command majority support.

"If we leave in chaos and without a deal, that seems to me to be the worst of all outcomes," Major said.

May should, therefore "go around" lawmakers in her party who say they are ready to accept a no-deal Brexit and drop her opposition to key issues in the negotiations, Major - who also faced a revolt inside the Conservative Party over Europe - said.

May has ruled out staying in the EU's single market, an option that is considered less economically damaging because Britain would not be able to control immigration from the bloc. She has also rejected staying in a customs union with the EU.

If May cannot compromise, she should allow parliament to find a way to overcome its splits, Major said. "I think there are signs parliament might be able to reach consensus," he said.

Failing that, Britain should have a fresh referendum on its membership of the EU.

In the meantime, delaying Brexit was wise, Major said.

Major's comments were rejected as "Remainer elite views" by a Conservative lawmaker who said May would break her promises to voters if she considered staying in the EU's single market or a customs union or holding a second referendum.

"Brexit would become meaningless. We wouldn't be leaving the European Union, we would be staying in the European Union," Suella Braverman told the BBC.

Theresa May is due to tell parliament on Monday how she intends to proceed on Brexit.

Former British prime minister John Major urged Theresa May on Saturday to drop her "red lines" on Brexit or allow parliament to find a way forward to avoid a damaging no-deal departure from the European Union in March. Major said he compromised on key decisions on the Northern Irish peace process and the first Gulf War while prime minister between 1990 and 1997, and May should do the same after her Brexit plan was rejected by a huge majority in parliament. "Her deal is dead and I don’t think honestly that tinkering with it is going to make very much difference if any difference at all," Major, who campaigned to stay in the EU ahead of the 2016 referendum, told BBC Radio. May is due to tell parliament on Monday how she intends to proceed on Brexit. Lawmakers may then propose alternatives to see if any could command majority support. "If we leave in chaos and without a deal, that seems to me to be the worst of all outcomes," Major said. May should, therefore "go around" lawmakers in her party who say they are ready to accept a no-deal Brexit and drop her opposition to key issues in the negotiations, Major - who also faced a revolt inside the Conservative Party over Europe - said. May has ruled out staying in the EU's single market, an option that is considered less economically damaging because Britain would not be able to control immigration from the bloc. She has also rejected staying in a customs union with the EU. If May cannot compromise, she should allow parliament to find a way to overcome its splits, Major said. "I think there are signs parliament might be able to reach consensus," he said. Failing that, Britain should have a fresh referendum on its membership of the EU. In the meantime, delaying Brexit was wise, Major said. Major's comments were rejected as "Remainer elite views" by a Conservative lawmaker who said May would break her promises to voters if she considered staying in the EU's single market or a customs union or holding a second referendum. "Brexit would become meaningless. We wouldn't be leaving the European Union, we would be staying in the European Union," Suella Braverman told the BBC.

Former British PM John Major urges May to drop Brexit red lines

Cambodia and <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/thailand-top-court-orders-compensation-for-myanmar-workers-in-landmark-case-190503&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiHqZ2PkfffAhXJpI8KHeoDDlAQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw0X-0uCGzvL2F0rEIVdNcsw">Myanmar</a> have railed at the European Commission for resuming tariffs on millions of dollars of rice, with one ministry describing the move as a "weapon" against already poor farmers.

The EC reimposed duties of up to 175 euros ($200) per tonne of Indica rice from the two countries for three years following intensive lobbying by Italy, who said cheap imports were damaging its farmers.

While it is unconnected, the EC decision comes against the backdrop of threats to remove both Southeast Asian countries from its Everything But Arms (EBA) scheme because of human rights abuses.

The EBA deal allows developing countries access to export a broad array of goods — including rice —to European markets without shouldering tariffs.

The EC found that Indica rice imports from Cambodia and Myanmar had increased by 89 per cent in the last five seasons.

But Cambodia's ministry of commerce said the complaint was based on inaccurate information and would hurt farmers in one of Southeast Asia's poorest countries.

It is a "weapon to kill them and their families who are in debt", it said late Thursday.

Nearly half of Cambodia's 625,000 tonnes of exported rice went to EU markets last year, according to government data.

Ye Min Aung, of Myanmar's Rice Federation, also slammed the move, saying its rice exports to the EU amounted to around $100 million annually.

"We request the EU to keep helping us," he said. "Our country has many difficulties to overcome."

This week Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen threatened "to step on the throat" of his political rivals if the EU ended the Anything But Arms deal, which would hit the kingdom's cash-cow garment sector the hardest.

Removing EU trade preferences is a long, drawn-out process that can take several months. 
&nbsp;

Cambodia and Myanmar have railed at the European Commission for resuming tariffs on millions of dollars of rice, with one ministry describing the move as a "weapon" against already poor farmers.

Cambodia and Myanmar have railed at the European Commission for resuming tariffs on millions of dollars of rice, with one ministry describing the move as a "weapon" against already poor farmers. The EC reimposed duties of up to 175 euros ($200) per tonne of Indica rice from the two countries for three years following intensive lobbying by Italy, who said cheap imports were damaging its farmers. While it is unconnected, the EC decision comes against the backdrop of threats to remove both Southeast Asian countries from its Everything But Arms (EBA) scheme because of human rights abuses. The EBA deal allows developing countries access to export a broad array of goods — including rice —to European markets without shouldering tariffs. The EC found that Indica rice imports from Cambodia and Myanmar had increased by 89 per cent in the last five seasons. But Cambodia's ministry of commerce said the complaint was based on inaccurate information and would hurt farmers in one of Southeast Asia's poorest countries. It is a "weapon to kill them and their families who are in debt", it said late Thursday. Nearly half of Cambodia's 625,000 tonnes of exported rice went to EU markets last year, according to government data. Ye Min Aung, of Myanmar's Rice Federation, also slammed the move, saying its rice exports to the EU amounted to around $100 million annually. "We request the EU to keep helping us," he said. "Our country has many difficulties to overcome." This week Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen threatened "to step on the throat" of his political rivals if the EU ended the Anything But Arms deal, which would hit the kingdom's cash-cow garment sector the hardest. Removing EU trade preferences is a long, drawn-out process that can take several months.

Cambodia, Myanmar hit out at tough EU rice tariffs

In pics: What happens after no-confidence vote against Theresa May?

Labour opposition party <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/uk-parliament-votes-down-pm-mays-eu-brexit-deal-by-230-votes-190586">Jeremy Corbyn has submitted a motion</a> of asserting that the Conservative government led by PM Theresa&nbsp;May has suffered a "catastrophic&nbsp;defeat"&nbsp;who will now face a vote of "no confidence". The vote is due to take place today.

On Tuesday, British Parliament had voted against <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/how-europe-reacted-to-brexit-deal-defeat-190587">Theresa May's government on the</a> Brexit deal with a &nbsp;432 to 202 margin after heated debates over weeks.

Amid the political row, European Union leader Donald Tusk urged British leaders to rethink their Brexit strategy after parliament rejected the planned withdrawal agreement.

"If a deal is impossible, and no one wants no deal, then who will finally have the courage to say what the only positive solution is?" Tusk tweeted.

Tusk said European Union member states will remain united in their stance on Brexit, Tusk's spokesman said.

"We regret the outcome of the vote and urge the UK government to clarify its intentions with respect to its next steps as soon as possible," the spokesman said, adding, "the EU27 will remain united... and will seek to reduce the damage caused by Brexit."

The Irish government waded into the Brexit debacle informing that it would intensify preparations for a no-deal Brexit after British MPs overwhelming voted to reject the deal.

"Regrettably, the outcome of tonight's vote increases the risk of a disorderly Brexit. Consequently, the government will continue to intensify preparations for such an outcome," Dublin said in a statement.

Reacting to the development, German vice-chancellor Olaf Scholz said the defeat of British Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit deal in Parliament was a "bitter day for Europe".

"This is a bitter day for Europe. We are well prepared -- but a hard Brexit would be the least attractive choice, for the EU and GB (Great Britain)," Scholz said.

The European Union has set March 29th as the date for Britain to exit the EU with some British lawmakers fearing a "no deal" Brexit would hit the nation's economy and lead to recession and consquent flight of jobs.&nbsp;

Labour opposition party Jeremy Corbyn has submitted a motion of asserting that the Conservative government led by PM Theresa May has suffered a "catastrophic defeat" who will now face a vote of "no confidence".

Labour opposition party Jeremy Corbyn has submitted a motion of asserting that the Conservative government led by PM Theresa May has suffered a "catastrophic defeat" who will now face a vote of "no confidence". The vote is due to take place today. On Tuesday, British Parliament had voted against Theresa May's government on the Brexit deal with a 432 to 202 margin after heated debates over weeks. Amid the political row, European Union leader Donald Tusk urged British leaders to rethink their Brexit strategy after parliament rejected the planned withdrawal agreement. "If a deal is impossible, and no one wants no deal, then who will finally have the courage to say what the only positive solution is?" Tusk tweeted. Tusk said European Union member states will remain united in their stance on Brexit, Tusk's spokesman said. "We regret the outcome of the vote and urge the UK government to clarify its intentions with respect to its next steps as soon as possible," the spokesman said, adding, "the EU27 will remain united... and will seek to reduce the damage caused by Brexit." The Irish government waded into the Brexit debacle informing that it would intensify preparations for a no-deal Brexit after British MPs overwhelming voted to reject the deal. "Regrettably, the outcome of tonight's vote increases the risk of a disorderly Brexit. Consequently, the government will continue to intensify preparations for such an outcome," Dublin said in a statement. Reacting to the development, German vice-chancellor Olaf Scholz said the defeat of British Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit deal in Parliament was a "bitter day for Europe". "This is a bitter day for Europe. We are well prepared -- but a hard Brexit would be the least attractive choice, for the EU and GB (Great Britain)," Scholz said. The European Union has set March 29th as the date for Britain to exit the EU with some British lawmakers fearing a "no deal" Brexit would hit the nation's economy and lead to recession and consquent flight of jobs.

After Brexit defeat in Parliament, PM Theresa May's government to face no confidence vote today

EU negotiator Michel Barnier warned on Wednesday that the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/after-brexit-defeat-in-parliament-pm-theresa-mays-government-to-face-no-confidence-vote-today-190589">British Parliament's overwhelming rejection </a>of a negotiated Brexit deal increases the risk that Britain will crash out of the European Union without an agreement.

"We are 10 weeks from the 31st of March and at 10 weeks the risk of a no deal has never seemed so high," Barnier told a session of the European Parliament in the eastern French city of Strasbourg.

Amid the political crisis, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/how-europe-reacted-to-brexit-deal-defeat-190587">France's Europe Minister Nathalie Loiseau</a> said the European Union could push back the looming March 29 Brexit deadline if London made such a request.

"Legally, technically, it's possible," Loiseau told France Inter radio.

"The British need to ask for it and there needs to be a unanimous agreement among the 27 other members of the European Union to say: 'Alright, you chose March 29 as the leaving date... Ok, we'll push it back."

Meanwhile, London's FTSE 100 index rose slightly at the open on Wednesday after the UK parliament handed the British government a bruising defeat over its Brexit deal with the EU.

The benchmark index of 100 companies gained 0.2 per cent to 6,910.20 points.&nbsp;

In the eurozone, Frankfurt's DAX 30 rose 0.5 per cent to 10,940.36 points and the Paris CAC 40 climbed 0.5 per cent to 4,811.59.

Prime Minister Theresa May will face a confidence vote today after MPs overwhelmingly rejected her deal to leave the European Union, leaving Britain with no plan as it hurtles towards Brexit on March 29.

May suffered the largest government defeat in modern British history on Tuesday night when the House of Commons rejected by 432 votes to 202 the withdrawal agreement she struck with Brussels late last year.

EU negotiator Michel Barnier warned on Wednesday that the British Parliament's overwhelming rejection of a negotiated Brexit deal increases the risk that Britain will crash out of the European Union without an agreement.

EU negotiator Michel Barnier warned on Wednesday that the British Parliament's overwhelming rejection of a negotiated Brexit deal increases the risk that Britain will crash out of the European Union without an agreement. "We are 10 weeks from the 31st of March and at 10 weeks the risk of a no deal has never seemed so high," Barnier told a session of the European Parliament in the eastern French city of Strasbourg. Amid the political crisis, France's Europe Minister Nathalie Loiseau said the European Union could push back the looming March 29 Brexit deadline if London made such a request. "Legally, technically, it's possible," Loiseau told France Inter radio. "The British need to ask for it and there needs to be a unanimous agreement among the 27 other members of the European Union to say: 'Alright, you chose March 29 as the leaving date... Ok, we'll push it back." Meanwhile, London's FTSE 100 index rose slightly at the open on Wednesday after the UK parliament handed the British government a bruising defeat over its Brexit deal with the EU. The benchmark index of 100 companies gained 0.2 per cent to 6,910.20 points. In the eurozone, Frankfurt's DAX 30 rose 0.5 per cent to 10,940.36 points and the Paris CAC 40 climbed 0.5 per cent to 4,811.59. Prime Minister Theresa May will face a confidence vote today after MPs overwhelmingly rejected her deal to leave the European Union, leaving Britain with no plan as it hurtles towards Brexit on March 29. May suffered the largest government defeat in modern British history on Tuesday night when the House of Commons rejected by 432 votes to 202 the withdrawal agreement she struck with Brussels late last year.

Risk of 'no deal' has never seemed so high, says EU negotiator after PM May loses Brexit vote in Parliament

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/fineprint-will-lawmakers-frustrate-uk-pm-theresa-may-190281">Britain's parliament</a> is debating whether to support Prime Minister <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/this-is-the-best-deal-possible-and-is-worthy-of-their-support-may-on-brexit-deal-190260">Theresa May's Brexit deal</a>, a decision which will define Britain`s departure from the European Union and set the course for the country`s economy.

The odds look stacked against May winning parliamentary approval for her deal, which has come under fire from all sides, including eurosceptics, supporters of the EU and the Northern Irish party propping up her minority Conservative government.

Below is a running tally of the number of lawmakers who have indicated during the first four days of a five-day debate whether they will support the Brexit deal on January 15.&nbsp;

Lawmakers are entitled to change their mind before the vote, and some who speak are yet to make a final decision on the deal.

There are a total of 650 lawmakers in parliament. Of those, around 100 are government ministers and Conservative Party enforcers, or whips, who are required to support the deal and so are not included in the tally.&nbsp;

May's Conservative Party has 317 lawmakers. It governs with a working majority of 13 thanks to a deal with the 10 lawmakers of the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party.

Lawmakers who have indicated they will support the deal: 44

Lawmakers who have indicated they will oppose the deal: 115(including 34 of May's Conservative lawmakers)

Britain's parliament is debating whether to support Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit deal, a decision which will define Britain`s departure from the European Union and set the course for the country`s economy.

Britain's parliament is debating whether to support Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit deal, a decision which will define Britain`s departure from the European Union and set the course for the country`s economy. The odds look stacked against May winning parliamentary approval for her deal, which has come under fire from all sides, including eurosceptics, supporters of the EU and the Northern Irish party propping up her minority Conservative government. Below is a running tally of the number of lawmakers who have indicated during the first four days of a five-day debate whether they will support the Brexit deal on January 15. Lawmakers are entitled to change their mind before the vote, and some who speak are yet to make a final decision on the deal. There are a total of 650 lawmakers in parliament. Of those, around 100 are government ministers and Conservative Party enforcers, or whips, who are required to support the deal and so are not included in the tally. May's Conservative Party has 317 lawmakers. It governs with a working majority of 13 thanks to a deal with the 10 lawmakers of the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party. Lawmakers who have indicated they will support the deal: 44 Lawmakers who have indicated they will oppose the deal: 115(including 34 of May's Conservative lawmakers)

Britain's Brexit vote: How many lawmakers are backing PM May?

Prime Minister Theresa May will on Monday repeat weekend <a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/theresa-may-requests-mps-to-back-brexit-deal-190017">warnings to MPs</a> poised to reject her EU divorce deal that failing to deliver <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/brexit-in-dates-from-leave-shock-to-no-confidence-vote-183632">Brexit </a>would be "catastrophic" for British democracy.

On the eve of Tuesday's monumental vote in parliament on her withdrawal agreement -- forged from 18 months of gruelling negotiations with European leaders -- May is set to address factory workers in Stoke, a Brexit-backing city in central England.

The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/british-pm-warns-of-catastrophe-if-lawmakers-dont-back-brexit-deal-189952">embattled leader</a>, who is widely expected to lose the House of Commons vote by a wide margin, will make a final bid for support by arguing: "We all have a duty to implement the result of the referendum.

"I ask MPs to consider the consequences of their actions on the faith of the British people in our democracy," May is expected to say, according to excerpts of her speech released by her office.

"What if we found ourselves in a situation where parliament tried to take the UK out of the EU in opposition to a remain vote?" she will ask.

"People's faith in the democratic process and their politicians would suffer catastrophic harm."

'No confidence in the government'

Britain is set to leave the European Union on March 29 but, with less than 11 weeks left, has yet to finalise the terms of its departure.

May's deal agrees a 21-month transition period under current terms while the future relationship with the bloc is negotiated, but it has drawn steadfast opposition from both Brexiteers and Remainers.&nbsp;

The prime minister has said rejecting it will throw Britain into "uncharted territory" and put the country at risk of crashing out without an agreement, or even no Brexit at all.

The opposition Labour Party, which favours remaining in a permanent customs union with the EU, has suggested it will seek a no-confidence vote in the government if MPs throw out the plan.

The Observer newspaper reported Sunday that its lawmakers have been told it could be tabled "within hours" of that on Tuesday, with the confidence vote to be held the following day.

If the government lose a no-confidence motion, there will be a period of 14 days in which parties can seek to find an alternative working majority in parliament.

If they fail to do so, a general election would be called.

"We will table a motion of no confidence in the government at a time of our choosing, but it's going to be soon, don't worry about it," Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn told the BBC on Sunday.

Corbyn conceded if the party won power, parliament would likely need to delay Brexit beyond March 29 so it could renegotiate the withdrawal agreement.

'A very British coup'

The prime minister already postponed a House of Commons vote on her plan in December to avoid defeat -- and MPs look set to reject it again on Tuesday.

Lawmakers who believe it either leaves Britain too close or too distant from the bloc, fired ominous warning shots this week, voting to force the prime minister to quickly set out an alternative plan for Brexit if she loses the vote.

It was her second setback in 24 hours after MPs also voted to deny the government certain taxation powers in a no-deal scenario -- in a bid to avoid such an outcome.&nbsp;

The Sunday Times said a group of senior cross-party backbench rebels are now plotting to change House of Commons rules to enable them to override government business if the deal falls.

Described as "a very British coup", the plan would see May lose control of parliamentary business to MPs, threatening her ability to govern, the newspaper said.&nbsp;

It said Downing Street was "extremely concerned" about the possibility, which could see lawmakers then delay Brexit through new legislation.&nbsp;

Conservative MP Nick Boles, who favours a Norway-style relationship which would keep Britain in the EU's single market, told the paper he was exploring tactics in the Commons to rule out a no-deal scenario.

"We have a mechanism which will give parliament control of the Brexit negotiations and ensure we do not leave the EU without a deal on March 29," he said.

"I am working on ways to achieve that outcome," Boles said, indicating he would publish the plan on Tuesday.

Prime Minister Theresa May will on Monday repeat weekend warnings to MPs poised to reject her EU divorce deal that failing to deliver Brexit would be "catastrophic" for British democracy.

Prime Minister Theresa May will on Monday repeat weekend warnings to MPs poised to reject her EU divorce deal that failing to deliver Brexit would be "catastrophic" for British democracy. On the eve of Tuesday's monumental vote in parliament on her withdrawal agreement -- forged from 18 months of gruelling negotiations with European leaders -- May is set to address factory workers in Stoke, a Brexit-backing city in central England. The embattled leader, who is widely expected to lose the House of Commons vote by a wide margin, will make a final bid for support by arguing: "We all have a duty to implement the result of the referendum. "I ask MPs to consider the consequences of their actions on the faith of the British people in our democracy," May is expected to say, according to excerpts of her speech released by her office. "What if we found ourselves in a situation where parliament tried to take the UK out of the EU in opposition to a remain vote?" she will ask. "People's faith in the democratic process and their politicians would suffer catastrophic harm." 'No confidence in the government' Britain is set to leave the European Union on March 29 but, with less than 11 weeks left, has yet to finalise the terms of its departure. May's deal agrees a 21-month transition period under current terms while the future relationship with the bloc is negotiated, but it has drawn steadfast opposition from both Brexiteers and Remainers. The prime minister has said rejecting it will throw Britain into "uncharted territory" and put the country at risk of crashing out without an agreement, or even no Brexit at all. The opposition Labour Party, which favours remaining in a permanent customs union with the EU, has suggested it will seek a no-confidence vote in the government if MPs throw out the plan. The Observer newspaper reported Sunday that its lawmakers have been told it could be tabled "within hours" of that on Tuesday, with the confidence vote to be held the following day. If the government lose a no-confidence motion, there will be a period of 14 days in which parties can seek to find an alternative working majority in parliament. If they fail to do so, a general election would be called. "We will table a motion of no confidence in the government at a time of our choosing, but it's going to be soon, don't worry about it," Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn told the BBC on Sunday. Corbyn conceded if the party won power, parliament would likely need to delay Brexit beyond March 29 so it could renegotiate the withdrawal agreement. 'A very British coup' The prime minister already postponed a House of Commons vote on her plan in December to avoid defeat -- and MPs look set to reject it again on Tuesday. Lawmakers who believe it either leaves Britain too close or too distant from the bloc, fired ominous warning shots this week, voting to force the prime minister to quickly set out an alternative plan for Brexit if she loses the vote. It was her second setback in 24 hours after MPs also voted to deny the government certain taxation powers in a no-deal scenario -- in a bid to avoid such an outcome. The Sunday Times said a group of senior cross-party backbench rebels are now plotting to change House of Commons rules to enable them to override government business if the deal falls. Described as "a very British coup", the plan would see May lose control of parliamentary business to MPs, threatening her ability to govern, the newspaper said. It said Downing Street was "extremely concerned" about the possibility, which could see lawmakers then delay Brexit through new legislation. Conservative MP Nick Boles, who favours a Norway-style relationship which would keep Britain in the EU's single market, told the paper he was exploring tactics in the Commons to rule out a no-deal scenario. "We have a mechanism which will give parliament control of the Brexit negotiations and ensure we do not leave the EU without a deal on March 29," he said. "I am working on ways to achieve that outcome," Boles said, indicating he would publish the plan on Tuesday.

Theresa May heads to Brexit-backing city to make last-ditch plea to rebel MPs

British MPs on Wednesday begin five days of debate ahead of a historic <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/uk-opposition-leader-corbyn-allegedly-calls-pm-theresa-may-stupid-woman-185370">delayed vote on Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit deal</a>, a day after giving her a stinging blow aimed at preventing the country from crashing out of the EU with no agreement.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/theresa-may-says-further-brexit-talks-with-eu-in-coming-days-184100">May's attempts to win over MPs</a>&nbsp;from Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which props up her government in parliament but is firmly opposed to the Brexit deal, were also rebuffed on Wednesday.

The government said it would grant local lawmakers in Northern Ireland greater powers to block legislation if their province ever found itself in a contentious "backstop" arrangement to avoid a hard border in Ireland.

But DUP Brexit spokesman Sammy Wilson told Sky News that the proposals were "window dressing" and that there would still have to be checks between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain in the event the backstop is enacted.

May faced another possible setback later on Wednesday as rebel Conservative MPs pushed for a vote that would force the government to reveal its plans within three days if the Brexit deal is not approved next Tuesday.

Lawmakers next week will be voting on the agreement that May has negotiated with the EU over the last 18 months, which faces daunting opposition as the clock ticks down before Britain leaves the European Union on March 29.

The prime minister has warned rebels in her own party that defeat will lead to a no-deal Brexit or no departure from the bloc at all.

But in a vote on Tuesday that raised the chances of a defeat in next week's historic vote, MPs including former ministers approved an amendment that will curtail the government's tax powers in case of a no-deal Brexit.

Brexit 'fantasies'&nbsp;

David Lidington, May's effective deputy, called the House of Commons defeat "inconvenient" yet ineffectual and insisted the government remained focused on winning approval for the prime minister's plan.

"We are focused on getting any possible vote in favour of the PM's deal," he told BBC radio.&nbsp;

"I don't think the British public are served by fantasies about magical alternative deals.&nbsp;

"The choice the people have is this deal or no deal, or — as some MPs advocate — to reverse the 2016 referendum entirely."

The prime minister has already pulled the vote once with defeat looming, and has said a loss for the government would plunge Britain into "uncharted territory".

She is still seeking assurances from the EU on the most controversial elements of the Brexit deal relating to Northern Ireland, in a bid to convince critics to back the agreement.

These assurances are set to be delivered to lawmakers before they vote, although not before they start their debate on Wednesday.

"The work to secure those assurances is ongoing. I think what's important is that if we are to secure assurances, MPs are aware of what they are before the vote takes place," a Downing Street spokesman said Tuesday.

Brexit delayed?&nbsp;

Some MPs would be in favour of a second referendum but such a move would likely cause outrage among Brexit voters and raise the issue of the framing of the question.

The battle has reached fever pitch as the deadline looms, with second referendum campaigners setting up stalls at markets nationwide and Brexiteers touring the country to persuade Britons they have nothing to fear from a clean break.

May insists Britain will leave the EU in March whatever happens, but there is growing talk of delaying the two-year Article 50 exit process to give her some breathing space to get her deal agreed.

An EU diplomat told AFP on Tuesday that "we are convinced that Theresa May will request a postponement after the agreement is rejected in the British parliament."

Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay denied reports about a possible delay, saying "there are people in the European Union who are discussing this issue, but that is not the position of the UK government."

The prime minister survived a half-hearted attempt by her party to oust her before Christmas, but the level of rebellion has left her weakened.

The main opposition Labour Party on Wednesday confirmed it will seek a no-confidence vote in the government if MPs reject May's Brexit deal next week.

British MPs on Wednesday begin five days of debate ahead of a historic delayed vote on Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit deal, a day after giving her a stinging blow aimed at preventing the country from crashing out of the EU with no agreement.

British MPs on Wednesday begin five days of debate ahead of a historic delayed vote on Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit deal, a day after giving her a stinging blow aimed at preventing the country from crashing out of the EU with no agreement. May's attempts to win over MPs from Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which props up her government in parliament but is firmly opposed to the Brexit deal, were also rebuffed on Wednesday. The government said it would grant local lawmakers in Northern Ireland greater powers to block legislation if their province ever found itself in a contentious "backstop" arrangement to avoid a hard border in Ireland. But DUP Brexit spokesman Sammy Wilson told Sky News that the proposals were "window dressing" and that there would still have to be checks between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain in the event the backstop is enacted. May faced another possible setback later on Wednesday as rebel Conservative MPs pushed for a vote that would force the government to reveal its plans within three days if the Brexit deal is not approved next Tuesday. Lawmakers next week will be voting on the agreement that May has negotiated with the EU over the last 18 months, which faces daunting opposition as the clock ticks down before Britain leaves the European Union on March 29. The prime minister has warned rebels in her own party that defeat will lead to a no-deal Brexit or no departure from the bloc at all. But in a vote on Tuesday that raised the chances of a defeat in next week's historic vote, MPs including former ministers approved an amendment that will curtail the government's tax powers in case of a no-deal Brexit. Brexit 'fantasies' David Lidington, May's effective deputy, called the House of Commons defeat "inconvenient" yet ineffectual and insisted the government remained focused on winning approval for the prime minister's plan. "We are focused on getting any possible vote in favour of the PM's deal," he told BBC radio. "I don't think the British public are served by fantasies about magical alternative deals. "The choice the people have is this deal or no deal, or — as some MPs advocate — to reverse the 2016 referendum entirely." The prime minister has already pulled the vote once with defeat looming, and has said a loss for the government would plunge Britain into "uncharted territory". She is still seeking assurances from the EU on the most controversial elements of the Brexit deal relating to Northern Ireland, in a bid to convince critics to back the agreement. These assurances are set to be delivered to lawmakers before they vote, although not before they start their debate on Wednesday. "The work to secure those assurances is ongoing. I think what's important is that if we are to secure assurances, MPs are aware of what they are before the vote takes place," a Downing Street spokesman said Tuesday. Brexit delayed? Some MPs would be in favour of a second referendum but such a move would likely cause outrage among Brexit voters and raise the issue of the framing of the question. The battle has reached fever pitch as the deadline looms, with second referendum campaigners setting up stalls at markets nationwide and Brexiteers touring the country to persuade Britons they have nothing to fear from a clean break. May insists Britain will leave the EU in March whatever happens, but there is growing talk of delaying the two-year Article 50 exit process to give her some breathing space to get her deal agreed. An EU diplomat told AFP on Tuesday that "we are convinced that Theresa May will request a postponement after the agreement is rejected in the British parliament." Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay denied reports about a possible delay, saying "there are people in the European Union who are discussing this issue, but that is not the position of the UK government." The prime minister survived a half-hearted attempt by her party to oust her before Christmas, but the level of rebellion has left her weakened. The main opposition Labour Party on Wednesday confirmed it will seek a no-confidence vote in the government if MPs reject May's Brexit deal next week.

British MPs begin 5 days of debate before vote on Brexit deal

Vietnam has accused <a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/apple-facebook-propel-wall-street-to-three-week-peak-189115">Facebook of violating a new cybersecurity law</a> by refusing to scrub anti-government content from its site, the first reprimand since the controversial bill came into effect days ago.

The law, which went live January 1 and has drawn criticism from the US, the EU, and web freedom groups, requires internet companies to remove "toxic content" and hand over user data when requested by authorities.

It also stipulates that companies should host servers in the one-party state — including banks and e-commerce companies — sparking fears of data and privacy breaches and cybersecurity threats.

State broadcaster Vietnam Television reported Wednesday that <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-ads-may-help-reduce-cancer-deaths-study-187324">Facebook failed to take down pages</a> allegedly calling for anti-government activities, citing requests from the Ministry of Information and Communications.

The ministry sent several letters and emails requesting the removals, according to the report.

But Facebook "delayed and even failed to remove information, claiming the information did not violate community standards," VTV reported.

Vietnam also accused the company of hosting advertisements for "illegal products" including counterfeit money, fake goods, weapons and firecrackers, the report added. &nbsp;

The ministry could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

The consequences for violating the law are expected to be laid out in a decree which has yet to be made public.

Vietnam has said the bill is designed to improve cybersecurity in the country, but critics say the legislation — which mirrors China's draconian internet rules — is aimed at silencing online dissent.

In a statement to AFP Wednesday, Facebook said it is "transparent about the content restrictions we make pursuant with local law in our Transparency Report".

"We have a clear process for governments to report illegal content to us, and we review all these requests against our terms of service and local law," a spokeswoman told AFP.

Social media is a crucial platform for activists in communist Vietnam, where all independent press and public protests are banned.

Facebook is by far the most popular tool for activists, though several have complained to AFP in recent months that posts have disappeared and accounts been blocked.

Unlike in China, social media and instant messaging services like WhatsApp are not banned, and analysts say the cybersecurity law is a means to control online expression without banning services — a move that would likely cause a widespread outcry.

There are more than 53 million Facebook users in Vietnam — over half of the population — many of whom use the site as a crucial platform for business and commerce.

State broadcaster Vietnam Television reported Wednesday that Facebook failed to take down pages allegedly calling for anti-government activities.

Vietnam has accused Facebook of violating a new cybersecurity law by refusing to scrub anti-government content from its site, the first reprimand since the controversial bill came into effect days ago. The law, which went live January 1 and has drawn criticism from the US, the EU, and web freedom groups, requires internet companies to remove "toxic content" and hand over user data when requested by authorities. It also stipulates that companies should host servers in the one-party state — including banks and e-commerce companies — sparking fears of data and privacy breaches and cybersecurity threats. State broadcaster Vietnam Television reported Wednesday that Facebook failed to take down pages allegedly calling for anti-government activities, citing requests from the Ministry of Information and Communications. The ministry sent several letters and emails requesting the removals, according to the report. But Facebook "delayed and even failed to remove information, claiming the information did not violate community standards," VTV reported. Vietnam also accused the company of hosting advertisements for "illegal products" including counterfeit money, fake goods, weapons and firecrackers, the report added. The ministry could not be reached for comment Wednesday. The consequences for violating the law are expected to be laid out in a decree which has yet to be made public. Vietnam has said the bill is designed to improve cybersecurity in the country, but critics say the legislation — which mirrors China's draconian internet rules — is aimed at silencing online dissent. In a statement to AFP Wednesday, Facebook said it is "transparent about the content restrictions we make pursuant with local law in our Transparency Report". "We have a clear process for governments to report illegal content to us, and we review all these requests against our terms of service and local law," a spokeswoman told AFP. Social media is a crucial platform for activists in communist Vietnam, where all independent press and public protests are banned. Facebook is by far the most popular tool for activists, though several have complained to AFP in recent months that posts have disappeared and accounts been blocked. Unlike in China, social media and instant messaging services like WhatsApp are not banned, and analysts say the cybersecurity law is a means to control online expression without banning services — a move that would likely cause a widespread outcry. There are more than 53 million Facebook users in Vietnam — over half of the population — many of whom use the site as a crucial platform for business and commerce.

Vietnam accuses Facebook of breaching new cyber law

The United Kingdom will leave the European Union on March 29 and is not looking to<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/uk-pm-may-says-any-article-50-extension-reopens-the-brexit-negotiations-180269"> extend the Article 50 exit process</a>, Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay said on Tuesday.

The Daily Telegraph reported that British and European officials are discussing the possibility of extending Britain's formal notice to withdraw from the EU amid fears a Brexit deal will not be approved by March 29.

"The government's policy is clear on this, the prime minister has said it on many an occasion: We are leaving the European Union on the 29th of March. We are not looking to extend," Barclay told Sky News.

When asked if any lawmakers in the Conservative Party had changed their minds on opposing May's deal, Barclay said: "Some have said they are much more open to but it is obviously challenging."

The Daily Telegraph reported that British and European officials are discussing the possibility of extending Britain's formal notice to withdraw from the EU.

The United Kingdom will leave the European Union on March 29 and is not looking to extend the Article 50 exit process, Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay said on Tuesday. The Daily Telegraph reported that British and European officials are discussing the possibility of extending Britain's formal notice to withdraw from the EU amid fears a Brexit deal will not be approved by March 29. "The government's policy is clear on this, the prime minister has said it on many an occasion: We are leaving the European Union on the 29th of March. We are not looking to extend," Barclay told Sky News. When asked if any lawmakers in the Conservative Party had changed their minds on opposing May's deal, Barclay said: "Some have said they are much more open to but it is obviously challenging."

UK not looking to extend Article 50: Brexit minister Stephen Barclay

Last year was the fourth warmest on record, extending a scorching streak driven by rising concentrations of man-made greenhouse gases, the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service said on Monday.

Average world surface air temperatures were 14.7 Celsius (58.5 Fahrenheit) in 2018, 0.2C less than 2016 which was the hottest year on record, it said in the first global assessment of temperatures based on full-year data.

The year 2016 was boosted by an El Nino event that warmed the surface of the Pacific Ocean.

"In 2018, we have again seen a very warm year, the fourth warmest on record," Jean-Noël Thépaut, head of the Copernicus Climate Change Service, said in a statement.

"Dramatic climatic events like the warm and dry summer in large parts of Europe or the increasing temperature around the Arctic regions are alarming signs to all of us," he added.

The years 2017 and 2015 were also fractionally warmer than 2018 in records dating back to the 19th century, Copernicus said.

Almost 200 nations agreed to a "rule book" to govern the Paris climate agreement in talks in Poland last month, even though critics said it was insufficient to prevent dangerous levels of global warming.

The 2015 Paris accord seeks to end the fossil fuel era this century by shifting to cleaner energies such as wind and solar power. US President Donald Trump plans to pull out and instead promote the US fossil fuel industry.

The Copernicus report confirms projections by the UN’s World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in November that 2018 would be fourth warmest, after a cool start to the year.

Last year was the fourth warmest on record, extending a scorching streak driven by rising concentrations of man-made greenhouse gases, the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service said on Monday.

Last year was the fourth warmest on record, extending a scorching streak driven by rising concentrations of man-made greenhouse gases, the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service said on Monday. Average world surface air temperatures were 14.7 Celsius (58.5 Fahrenheit) in 2018, 0.2C less than 2016 which was the hottest year on record, it said in the first global assessment of temperatures based on full-year data. The year 2016 was boosted by an El Nino event that warmed the surface of the Pacific Ocean. "In 2018, we have again seen a very warm year, the fourth warmest on record," Jean-Noël Thépaut, head of the Copernicus Climate Change Service, said in a statement. "Dramatic climatic events like the warm and dry summer in large parts of Europe or the increasing temperature around the Arctic regions are alarming signs to all of us," he added. The years 2017 and 2015 were also fractionally warmer than 2018 in records dating back to the 19th century, Copernicus said. Almost 200 nations agreed to a "rule book" to govern the Paris climate agreement in talks in Poland last month, even though critics said it was insufficient to prevent dangerous levels of global warming. The 2015 Paris accord seeks to end the fossil fuel era this century by shifting to cleaner energies such as wind and solar power. US President Donald Trump plans to pull out and instead promote the US fossil fuel industry. The Copernicus report confirms projections by the UN’s World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in November that 2018 would be fourth warmest, after a cool start to the year.

2018 was the fourth-warmest year ever

More Britons want to remain a member of the European Union than leave, according to a survey published on Sunday which also showed voters want to make the final decision themselves.

Britain is due leave the EU on March 29, but Prime Minister Theresa May is struggling to get her exit deal approved by parliament, opening up huge uncertainty over whether a deal is possible, or even whether the country will leave at all.

The survey by polling firm YouGov showed that if a referendum were held immediately, 46 per cent would vote to remain, 39 per cent would vote to leave, and the rest either did not know, would not vote, or refused to answer the question.

When the undecided and those who refused to answer were removed from the sample, the split was 54-46 in favour of remaining.

That is broadly in line with other polls in recent months which show a deeply divided electorate, in which opinion has swung towards remaining in the EU. The 2016 referendum voted 52 to 48 per cent in favour of leaving.

The poll of more than 25,000 voters was commissioned by the People's Vote campaign, which is spearheading an increasingly vocal push for a second referendum on Brexit.

On Sunday, May reiterated her opposition to holding a second referendum, saying it would be divisive and disrespectful to those who voted to leave in the initial vote, and also highlighted a lack of time available to hold a new referendum.

But, the survey showed 41 per cent thought the final decision about Brexit should be made by a new public vote versus 36 per cent who believe it should be up to parliament. Removing those who are undecided, the split was 53 per cent in favour of another referendum and 47 per cent against.

Lawmakers are due to vote on whether to accept May's exit deal in the week beginning Jan. 14.

More Britons want to remain a member of the European Union than leave, according to a survey published on Sunday which also showed voters want to make the final decision themselves.

More Britons want to remain a member of the European Union than leave, according to a survey published on Sunday which also showed voters want to make the final decision themselves. Britain is due leave the EU on March 29, but Prime Minister Theresa May is struggling to get her exit deal approved by parliament, opening up huge uncertainty over whether a deal is possible, or even whether the country will leave at all. The survey by polling firm YouGov showed that if a referendum were held immediately, 46 per cent would vote to remain, 39 per cent would vote to leave, and the rest either did not know, would not vote, or refused to answer the question. When the undecided and those who refused to answer were removed from the sample, the split was 54-46 in favour of remaining. That is broadly in line with other polls in recent months which show a deeply divided electorate, in which opinion has swung towards remaining in the EU. The 2016 referendum voted 52 to 48 per cent in favour of leaving. The poll of more than 25,000 voters was commissioned by the People's Vote campaign, which is spearheading an increasingly vocal push for a second referendum on Brexit. On Sunday, May reiterated her opposition to holding a second referendum, saying it would be divisive and disrespectful to those who voted to leave in the initial vote, and also highlighted a lack of time available to hold a new referendum. But, the survey showed 41 per cent thought the final decision about Brexit should be made by a new public vote versus 36 per cent who believe it should be up to parliament. Removing those who are undecided, the split was 53 per cent in favour of another referendum and 47 per cent against. Lawmakers are due to vote on whether to accept May's exit deal in the week beginning Jan. 14.

Britons would now vote to stay in EU, want second referendum: Poll

Britain is more likely to end up leaving the European Union without a deal if parliament rejects the agreement Prime Minister Theresa May has negotiated with Brussels, Brexit minister Stephen Barclay said on Thursday.

"No deal will be far more likely if MPs (Members of Parliament) reject the government's Brexit deal later this month," Barclay wrote in the Daily Express newspaper.&nbsp;

Britain is more likely to end up leaving the European Union without a deal if parliament rejects the agreement Prime Minister Theresa May has negotiated with Brussels, Brexit minister Stephen Barclay said on Thursday.

Britain is more likely to end up leaving the European Union without a deal if parliament rejects the agreement Prime Minister Theresa May has negotiated with Brussels, Brexit minister Stephen Barclay said on Thursday. "No deal will be far more likely if MPs (Members of Parliament) reject the government's Brexit deal later this month," Barclay wrote in the Daily Express newspaper.

UK Brexit minister: No-deal EU exit 'far more likely' if parliament rejects PM May's deal

Britain has spent more than £100 million on chartering ferries to mitigate the risk of "severe congestion" at the port of Dover in <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/britons-could-face-diet-change-under-hard-brexit-report-185733">the event of a no-deal Brexit</a>, according to government documents.

The government has struck deals worth £107.7 million ($137 million, 117 million euros) with British, French and Danish ferry companies that would allow for almost 4,000 more lorries a week to use other ports on England's south coast to prevent a bottleneck at Dover, it added.

"This significant extra capacity is a small but important element of the Department for Transport's (DfT) no-deal Brexit planning," said a spokesman for the department.

"The department is helping ensure the rest of government are fully prepared for a range of scenarios, including a particular focus on a potential no-deal and to mitigate the impact of any Brexit outcome on all transport modes."

The DfT has signed contracts with French firm Brittany Ferries, Danish company DFDS and Britain's Seaborne, saying the awards were "a small but important element" of its no-deal planning.

The additional services will provide up to half a million tonnes a month in extra capacity, which the government hopes will mitigate the extra time needed to perform customs checks on incoming and outgoing freight.

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable called the move "complete madness".

"The government has the power to stop 'no deal' at any time but instead is spending millions on last-minute contracts," he said.

The department also warned that increased border checks could "cause delivery of critical goods to be delayed", and "significant wider disruption to the UK economy".

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/theresa-may-cuts-christmas-break-short-to-prepare-for-brexit-186415">British Prime Minister Theresa May</a> secured an agreement with European Union leaders on Nov 25 that would see Britain leave the bloc on March 29 with continued close trade ties, but the odds look stacked against her getting it through a deeply divided British parliament.

The deal has been criticised from among May's Conservative lawmakers by supporters of a cleaner break with the EU and those who want to keep close ties.

Britain has spent more than £100 million on chartering ferries to mitigate the risk of "severe congestion" at the port of Dover in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to government documents.

Britain has spent more than £100 million on chartering ferries to mitigate the risk of "severe congestion" at the port of Dover in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to government documents. The government has struck deals worth £107.7 million ($137 million, 117 million euros) with British, French and Danish ferry companies that would allow for almost 4,000 more lorries a week to use other ports on England's south coast to prevent a bottleneck at Dover, it added. "This significant extra capacity is a small but important element of the Department for Transport's (DfT) no-deal Brexit planning," said a spokesman for the department. "The department is helping ensure the rest of government are fully prepared for a range of scenarios, including a particular focus on a potential no-deal and to mitigate the impact of any Brexit outcome on all transport modes." The DfT has signed contracts with French firm Brittany Ferries, Danish company DFDS and Britain's Seaborne, saying the awards were "a small but important element" of its no-deal planning. The additional services will provide up to half a million tonnes a month in extra capacity, which the government hopes will mitigate the extra time needed to perform customs checks on incoming and outgoing freight. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable called the move "complete madness". "The government has the power to stop 'no deal' at any time but instead is spending millions on last-minute contracts," he said. The department also warned that increased border checks could "cause delivery of critical goods to be delayed", and "significant wider disruption to the UK economy". British Prime Minister Theresa May secured an agreement with European Union leaders on Nov 25 that would see Britain leave the bloc on March 29 with continued close trade ties, but the odds look stacked against her getting it through a deeply divided British parliament. The deal has been criticised from among May's Conservative lawmakers by supporters of a cleaner break with the EU and those who want to keep close ties.

UK splashes £100 million on ferries to ease Brexit fears

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/cambodian-pm-says-wont-allow-any-foreign-military-base-in-his-country-178121">Cambodia's strongman leader Hun Sen </a>lashed out at Western governments for pushing "democracy and human rights" on his country, capping off a tumultuous political year with a fiery speech on Saturday.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/cambodias-hun-sen-says-will-give-speech-to-un-after-flawed-election-157311?first_load=no">The 66-year-old prime minister </a>has ruled Cambodia for over three decades, with the Southeast Asian country<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/china-pledges-100-million-in-military-aid-to-cambodia-145562"> tilting towards China</a> in recent years thanks to loans for infrastructure and few complaints on human rights issues.

His administration was renewed for another five years in July following elections critics condemned as a sham, inciting threats from the European Union to revoke duty-free access to EU countries.&nbsp;

But Hun Sen remained defiant Saturday as he inaugurated a monument with carvings showcasing his government's achievements.&nbsp;

"Don't make war by using what is called democracy and human rights, in which democratic countries used to make the mistake of supporting Lon Nol's coup," he said in a speech to thousands of officials.&nbsp;

Lon Nol's US-backed regime was ousted by the ultra-Maoist Khmer Rouge in 1975, jumpstarting four years of horror as Cambodians were forced to live on farming communes, endure hard labour, and were tortured and murdered if they were suspected of plotting against leader Pol Pot.

Hun Sen was a former Khmer Rouge cadre who defected and had a role in toppling the genocidal regime in 1979, although the US later sought to keep the ousted Khmer Rouge at the table in the United Nations.

"You as a democratic country ... supported Pol Pot, who used to kill people with no regards for respecting human rights," Hun Sen said, without naming the US. "You supported them to keep a seat at the UN."

Cambodia's government dissolved the main opposition party and jailed its leader ahead of July elections in which it won every seat in parliament, transforming the nation into a one-party state.

Cambodia's strongman leader Hun Sen lashed out at Western governments for pushing "democracy and human rights" on his country, capping off a tumultuous political year with a fiery speech on Saturday.

Cambodia's strongman leader Hun Sen lashed out at Western governments for pushing "democracy and human rights" on his country, capping off a tumultuous political year with a fiery speech on Saturday. The 66-year-old prime minister has ruled Cambodia for over three decades, with the Southeast Asian country tilting towards China in recent years thanks to loans for infrastructure and few complaints on human rights issues. His administration was renewed for another five years in July following elections critics condemned as a sham, inciting threats from the European Union to revoke duty-free access to EU countries. But Hun Sen remained defiant Saturday as he inaugurated a monument with carvings showcasing his government's achievements. "Don't make war by using what is called democracy and human rights, in which democratic countries used to make the mistake of supporting Lon Nol's coup," he said in a speech to thousands of officials. Lon Nol's US-backed regime was ousted by the ultra-Maoist Khmer Rouge in 1975, jumpstarting four years of horror as Cambodians were forced to live on farming communes, endure hard labour, and were tortured and murdered if they were suspected of plotting against leader Pol Pot. Hun Sen was a former Khmer Rouge cadre who defected and had a role in toppling the genocidal regime in 1979, although the US later sought to keep the ousted Khmer Rouge at the table in the United Nations. "You as a democratic country ... supported Pol Pot, who used to kill people with no regards for respecting human rights," Hun Sen said, without naming the US. "You supported them to keep a seat at the UN." Cambodia's government dissolved the main opposition party and jailed its leader ahead of July elections in which it won every seat in parliament, transforming the nation into a one-party state.

Cambodia strongman Hun Sen derides 'democracy' in fiery speech

EU agrees deal to cut greenhouse emissions from cars

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/china-says-it-held-second-vice-ministerial-call-with-us-on-trade-186021">China </a>accused Britain and the European Union of hypocrisy on Monday for expressing concern about China's detention of two Canadian citizens, saying they had double standards for not mentioning a senior Chinese executive arrested in Canada.

Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said on Saturday Canada will maintain a high-level campaign in the coming days to<a href="http://www.wionews.com/americas/canada-seeks-help-of-allies-for-release-of-detainees-in-china-185916"> seek support from allies </a>as it pressures China to free the two detained Canadians, who China says are suspected of endangering state security.

Freeland spoke a day after the United States joined Canada in calling on Beijing to release the pair, who were held after Canadian authorities arrested a senior Chinese executive on a US&nbsp;extradition warrant. Britain and the European Union have also expressed support for Canada.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said Beijing expressed "strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition" to comments by Canada, the United States and others on the detained Canadians.

The two, Michael Kovrig, a former diplomat and an adviser with the International Crisis Group (ICG) think-tank, and businessman Michael Spavor are suspected of endangering state security so they are "of course" being detained, Hua said.

"We urge relevant countries to earnestly respect China's judicial sovereignty," she told a daily news briefing, reiterating their lawful rights have been guaranteed.

The support of Britain and the European Union was "strange", Hua added.

"What's this got to do with Britain and the EU? When the Canadians illegally detained a senior executive at a Chinese company at the request of the United States, where were they?" she said.

"Their so-called human rights have different standards for different countries' citizens," Hua added.

Kovrig is also a Hungarian and therefore an EU citizen, sources told Reuters last week.

The two were detained after Canadian police arrested Huawei Technologies Co Ltd's chief financial officer,<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/huawei-cfo-meng-wanzhou-freed-on-bail-leaves-courthouse-183504"> Meng Wanzhou</a>, on December 1.

China again urges Canada to release Meng and the United States to withdraw its arrest warrant, Hua said.

While Meng has had full access to lawyers and is able to see family, Kovrig is being denied legal representation, is not allowed to see family, and is limited to one consular visit a month, sources familiar with the situation say.

No details have been revealed about Spavor's detention. Canadian diplomats have seen both men at least once since they were detained.

Canada arrested Meng at the request of the United States, which is engaged in a trade war with China. Meng faces extradition to the United States to face fraud charges which carry a maximum sentence of 30 years jail for each charge.

China has given only vague details of why they have detained the two Canadians and has not drawn a direct link to Meng's arrest.

China accused Britain and the European Union of hypocrisy on Monday for expressing concern about China's detention of two Canadian citizens, saying they had double standards for not mentioning a senior Chinese executive arrested in Canada.

China accused Britain and the European Union of hypocrisy on Monday for expressing concern about China's detention of two Canadian citizens, saying they had double standards for not mentioning a senior Chinese executive arrested in Canada. Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said on Saturday Canada will maintain a high-level campaign in the coming days to seek support from allies as it pressures China to free the two detained Canadians, who China says are suspected of endangering state security. Freeland spoke a day after the United States joined Canada in calling on Beijing to release the pair, who were held after Canadian authorities arrested a senior Chinese executive on a US extradition warrant. Britain and the European Union have also expressed support for Canada. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said Beijing expressed "strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition" to comments by Canada, the United States and others on the detained Canadians. The two, Michael Kovrig, a former diplomat and an adviser with the International Crisis Group (ICG) think-tank, and businessman Michael Spavor are suspected of endangering state security so they are "of course" being detained, Hua said. "We urge relevant countries to earnestly respect China's judicial sovereignty," she told a daily news briefing, reiterating their lawful rights have been guaranteed. The support of Britain and the European Union was "strange", Hua added. "What's this got to do with Britain and the EU? When the Canadians illegally detained a senior executive at a Chinese company at the request of the United States, where were they?" she said. "Their so-called human rights have different standards for different countries' citizens," Hua added. Kovrig is also a Hungarian and therefore an EU citizen, sources told Reuters last week. The two were detained after Canadian police arrested Huawei Technologies Co Ltd's chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou, on December 1. China again urges Canada to release Meng and the United States to withdraw its arrest warrant, Hua said. While Meng has had full access to lawyers and is able to see family, Kovrig is being denied legal representation, is not allowed to see family, and is limited to one consular visit a month, sources familiar with the situation say. No details have been revealed about Spavor's detention. Canadian diplomats have seen both men at least once since they were detained. Canada arrested Meng at the request of the United States, which is engaged in a trade war with China. Meng faces extradition to the United States to face fraud charges which carry a maximum sentence of 30 years jail for each charge. China has given only vague details of why they have detained the two Canadians and has not drawn a direct link to Meng's arrest.

Video: China accuses Britain, EU of hypocrisy over Canada detentions concerns

The Bulgarian government has asked the European Union (EU) for an extra 80 million euros ($90 million) to beef up its border control on the influx of refugees.

The EU had reportedly allocated 150 million euros ($170 million) for <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/germany-arrests-suspect-over-killing-of-bulgarian-journalist-170693">Bulgaria</a> to consolidate its border control.

Bulgaria said strengthening its border control will also boost the security of the EU's external border.

Ivo Tsekov, a professor on Balkan international relations of Sofia University, said an influx of refugees into Bulgaria is an issue that concerns both Bulgaria and the EU.

"Obviously, there has been a huge influx of people including in the last couple of years, coming from the Middle East, mostly fleeing from Syria but also from central Asia or North Africa. And at some point, this has become an issue for Bulgaria because we need to properly establish certain protocols, if you will, as to who enters Bulgaria and thereby into the European Union. And in that sense, the question is much bigger than only about Bulgaria. It's about the European Union security and about the European Union external borders," said Teskov.

Since the European migrant crisis began in 2015, a large number of refugees have tried to reach western and northern European nations by way of Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria.

The Bulgarian government has asked the European Union (EU) for an extra 80 million euros ($90 million) to beef up its border control on the influx of refugees. The EU had reportedly allocated 150 million euros ($170 million) for Bulgaria to consolidate its border control.

The Bulgarian government has asked the European Union (EU) for an extra 80 million euros ($90 million) to beef up its border control on the influx of refugees. The EU had reportedly allocated 150 million euros ($170 million) for Bulgaria to consolidate its border control. Bulgaria said strengthening its border control will also boost the security of the EU's external border. Ivo Tsekov, a professor on Balkan international relations of Sofia University, said an influx of refugees into Bulgaria is an issue that concerns both Bulgaria and the EU. "Obviously, there has been a huge influx of people including in the last couple of years, coming from the Middle East, mostly fleeing from Syria but also from central Asia or North Africa. And at some point, this has become an issue for Bulgaria because we need to properly establish certain protocols, if you will, as to who enters Bulgaria and thereby into the European Union. And in that sense, the question is much bigger than only about Bulgaria. It's about the European Union security and about the European Union external borders," said Teskov. Since the European migrant crisis began in 2015, a large number of refugees have tried to reach western and northern European nations by way of Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria.

Bulgaria requests EU for 80 million euros more for border control

The British government could tell citizens to change their diets if importing food from the European Union becomes difficult under a no-deal Brexit, a report said Friday.

London has begun planning what to do about food supplies if Britain leaves the EU without an agreement with Brussels, The Times said, citing plans revealed to the newspaper.

Perishable goods, such as vegetables from the Netherlands or fruit from Spain, could be held up at the border if tough checks are imposed or the EU limits trade, said the report.

It said the government had identified giant hangars around the country that could be used to stockpile food.

However, officials do not think there would be a general food shortage, according to the report.

Some companies have begun taking matters into their own hands.

The Zizzi and ASK restaurant chains will be switching from Italian to British mozzarella suppliers.

The brands' parent company Azzurri said it had taken the decision due to fears that a no-deal Brexit would disrupt food supplies into Britain.

The new Welsh milk mozzarella has already been introduced by ASK and will be on the Zizzi menu next year.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/how-brexit-saga-unfolded-in-2018-184980">How Brexit saga unfolded in 2018</a>

Meanwhile, businesses including Premier Foods, Quorn, and London's plush Fortnum and Mason emporium have said they will stockpile some products in case of delays at the border.

The British government and Brussels have struck a withdrawal agreement that would prevent a no-deal Brexit.

However, it currently lacks majority support in the British parliament, being opposed by both Brexiteer lawmakers and pro-EU MPs alike.

The government has stepped up its no-deal planning.

Prime Minister Theresa May has said the vote on the deal will take place the week of January 14.

Britain is due to leave the EU on March 29.

The British government could tell citizens to change their diets if importing food from the European Union becomes difficult under a no-deal Brexit, a report said Friday.

The British government could tell citizens to change their diets if importing food from the European Union becomes difficult under a no-deal Brexit, a report said Friday. London has begun planning what to do about food supplies if Britain leaves the EU without an agreement with Brussels, The Times said, citing plans revealed to the newspaper. Perishable goods, such as vegetables from the Netherlands or fruit from Spain, could be held up at the border if tough checks are imposed or the EU limits trade, said the report. It said the government had identified giant hangars around the country that could be used to stockpile food. However, officials do not think there would be a general food shortage, according to the report. Some companies have begun taking matters into their own hands. The Zizzi and ASK restaurant chains will be switching from Italian to British mozzarella suppliers. The brands' parent company Azzurri said it had taken the decision due to fears that a no-deal Brexit would disrupt food supplies into Britain. The new Welsh milk mozzarella has already been introduced by ASK and will be on the Zizzi menu next year. Also read: How Brexit saga unfolded in 2018 Meanwhile, businesses including Premier Foods, Quorn, and London's plush Fortnum and Mason emporium have said they will stockpile some products in case of delays at the border. The British government and Brussels have struck a withdrawal agreement that would prevent a no-deal Brexit. However, it currently lacks majority support in the British parliament, being opposed by both Brexiteer lawmakers and pro-EU MPs alike. The government has stepped up its no-deal planning. Prime Minister Theresa May has said the vote on the deal will take place the week of January 14. Britain is due to leave the EU on March 29.

Britons could face diet change under hard Brexit: Report

Germany was Wednesday set to toughen rules on non-EU share purchases and acquisitions of its strategic companies, amid growing disquiet about takeovers by Chinese firms.

It plans to lower the threshold where reviews apply to foreign purchase offers of 10 per cent of companies, down from 25 per cent now.

Germany and other EU states have voiced growing concern in recent years as Chinese companies have bought up, or purchased controlling stakes in, high-tech firms, airports and harbours.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's cabinet planned to approve the change to the Foreign Trade Regulation, and Economy Minister Peter Altmaier was then to give a statement at 1130 GMT.

The update would strengthen government powers to review and possibly block foreign purchases in companies that are crucial to Germany's defence or "critical infrastructure".

This would include military, IT security and power companies but also, for example, large food producers reported the business daily Handelsblatt.

"The test criterion is whether an acquisition endangers the public order or security of the Federal Republic of Germany," an economy ministry spokesman told AFP.

The alarm has grown in Germany about losing valuable knowhow since Chinese appliance giant Midea in mid-2016 took over German industrial robotics supplier Kuka.

In mid-2017 Germany tightened scrutiny of non-EU takeovers of strategic companies, doubling to four months the time for reviews, and broadening the range of sectors.

'National security'&nbsp;

In February, Germany raised no objections when Chinese billionaire Li Shufu bought a near 10-per cent stake in the Mercedes-Benz parent company Daimler.

However, in July, the state took a minority stake in electricity transmission firm 50 Hertz, citing national security reasons, to thwart Chinese investors from buying into it.

Germany has been discussing similar protective steps at the EU level with France and Italy.

"The aim is to be able to intervene nationally, in individual cases, against state-controlled or state-financed strategic direct investments," said the economy ministry.

This could apply where the home country of the purchasing company financially supports a takeover bid at above-market prices or through political incentives.

German business groups criticised Berlin's move Wednesday as overly protectionist and ultimately harmful.

The Chamber of Commerce and Industry called the change "problematic", warning that it sends a "negative signal to our foreign partners".

And the Mechanical Engineering Industry Association charged that it "is politically motivated and creates additional uncertainty among foreign investors".

"Germany relies on open markets, including foreign investment," said its chief executive Thilo Brodtmann. "Conversely, we also expect open investment markets from our partner countries outside the EU."

The economy ministry insisted that "this is not about more prohibitions but about strengthening the capacity to find out whether legitimate security interests of Germany are affected".

Germany had reviewed 80 to 100 purchase offers annually in recent years "without discrimination and regardless of origin of the buyer" and had so far never blocked an offer, he said.

This proved that "Germany remains one of the world's most open investment locations".

Germany was Wednesday set to toughen rules on non-EU share purchases and acquisitions of its strategic companies, amid growing disquiet about takeovers by Chinese firms.

Germany was Wednesday set to toughen rules on non-EU share purchases and acquisitions of its strategic companies, amid growing disquiet about takeovers by Chinese firms. It plans to lower the threshold where reviews apply to foreign purchase offers of 10 per cent of companies, down from 25 per cent now. Germany and other EU states have voiced growing concern in recent years as Chinese companies have bought up, or purchased controlling stakes in, high-tech firms, airports and harbours. Chancellor Angela Merkel's cabinet planned to approve the change to the Foreign Trade Regulation, and Economy Minister Peter Altmaier was then to give a statement at 1130 GMT. The update would strengthen government powers to review and possibly block foreign purchases in companies that are crucial to Germany's defence or "critical infrastructure". This would include military, IT security and power companies but also, for example, large food producers reported the business daily Handelsblatt. "The test criterion is whether an acquisition endangers the public order or security of the Federal Republic of Germany," an economy ministry spokesman told AFP. The alarm has grown in Germany about losing valuable knowhow since Chinese appliance giant Midea in mid-2016 took over German industrial robotics supplier Kuka. In mid-2017 Germany tightened scrutiny of non-EU takeovers of strategic companies, doubling to four months the time for reviews, and broadening the range of sectors. 'National security' In February, Germany raised no objections when Chinese billionaire Li Shufu bought a near 10-per cent stake in the Mercedes-Benz parent company Daimler. However, in July, the state took a minority stake in electricity transmission firm 50 Hertz, citing national security reasons, to thwart Chinese investors from buying into it. Germany has been discussing similar protective steps at the EU level with France and Italy. "The aim is to be able to intervene nationally, in individual cases, against state-controlled or state-financed strategic direct investments," said the economy ministry. This could apply where the home country of the purchasing company financially supports a takeover bid at above-market prices or through political incentives. German business groups criticised Berlin's move Wednesday as overly protectionist and ultimately harmful. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry called the change "problematic", warning that it sends a "negative signal to our foreign partners". And the Mechanical Engineering Industry Association charged that it "is politically motivated and creates additional uncertainty among foreign investors". "Germany relies on open markets, including foreign investment," said its chief executive Thilo Brodtmann. "Conversely, we also expect open investment markets from our partner countries outside the EU." The economy ministry insisted that "this is not about more prohibitions but about strengthening the capacity to find out whether legitimate security interests of Germany are affected". Germany had reviewed 80 to 100 purchase offers annually in recent years "without discrimination and regardless of origin of the buyer" and had so far never blocked an offer, he said. This proved that "Germany remains one of the world's most open investment locations".

With eye on China, Germany toughens rules for foreign buyouts

European Council President Donald Tusk said on Friday (December 14) he had no mandate to reopen Brexit negotiations with Britain, while the head of the bloc's executive, Jean-Claude Juncker, said the EU stood ready to start discussions on the future relationship as soon as the text is ratified.

Tusk and Juncker were speaking at a news conference after two days of talks at an EU summit that were dominated by the issue of Brexit and saw the other 27 national leaders of the bloc offer British prime Minister Theresa May only vague assurances over their tentative Brexit deal.

May, who on Wednesday survived a plot in her party to oust her, rejected EU criticism of "nebulous" demands from a divided British political system and asked EU leaders for political and legal assurances to help her win parliament around to her deal.

Commenting on British media reports describing the EU leaders' response to May's plea as a 'humiliation,' Tusk said EU leaders treated the prime minister with 'a much greater empathy and respect than some British MPs ,' while Juncker said they had 'the highest respect' for her.

European Union leaders on Friday also called for urgent action to combat fake news on the Internet, saying more needed to be done to safeguard next year's EU election against disinformation. Juncker said he had warned EU leaders around the table that some of them were spreading fake news themselves, naming Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban as one of them.

European Council President Donald Tusk said on Friday (December 14) he had no mandate to reopen Brexit negotiations with Britain, while the head of the bloc's executive, Jean-Claude Juncker, said the EU stood ready to start discussions on the future relationship as soon as the text is ratified.

European Council President Donald Tusk said on Friday (December 14) he had no mandate to reopen Brexit negotiations with Britain, while the head of the bloc's executive, Jean-Claude Juncker, said the EU stood ready to start discussions on the future relationship as soon as the text is ratified. Tusk and Juncker were speaking at a news conference after two days of talks at an EU summit that were dominated by the issue of Brexit and saw the other 27 national leaders of the bloc offer British prime Minister Theresa May only vague assurances over their tentative Brexit deal. May, who on Wednesday survived a plot in her party to oust her, rejected EU criticism of "nebulous" demands from a divided British political system and asked EU leaders for political and legal assurances to help her win parliament around to her deal. Commenting on British media reports describing the EU leaders' response to May's plea as a 'humiliation,' Tusk said EU leaders treated the prime minister with 'a much greater empathy and respect than some British MPs ,' while Juncker said they had 'the highest respect' for her. European Union leaders on Friday also called for urgent action to combat fake news on the Internet, saying more needed to be done to safeguard next year's EU election against disinformation. Juncker said he had warned EU leaders around the table that some of them were spreading fake news themselves, naming Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban as one of them.

EU's Tusk said no more Brexit negotiations

By Helen Drake

By some freakish alignment of political firmaments, both Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron have lived the week from political hell. Both the British prime minister and French president face challenges to their very survival as national leader.

On the face of it, their winter woes are surprisingly similar. The political authority of both Macron and May is under acute attack. Their public personas have been drained of credibility, and both have lost face even among their supporters. Neither leader enjoys a supportive media and neither can count on solid political party support. They are each playing for very high stakes.

For May, the endgame is to bring about the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, no more, no less. She is unerring in her determination to see the job through and it is her crude simplification of an overtly complex and divisive process that has led her inexorably into her current predicament. Her torment has been played out within the walls of Westminster Palace.

But these are walls in name only: every twist and turn of the prime minister’s efforts to square parliamentary sovereignty with the result of the 2016 referendum has been laid bare. As a result, Brexit inveigled itself once more on to the agenda of the most recent 2018 summit meeting of EU heads of state and government in Brussels.

Macron attended the event in a newly altered state. Since his election in May 2017, Macron’s goal has been to gird France for a future which worries him, and he has been in a great hurry. Stasis is his enemy, transformation his friend. He knows no fear, sees no obstacles that cannot be surmounted, and the sky is his limit. The scale of his ambition and confidence is what has brought him to earth with a resounding bump.

Damaged authority

A leitmotif of the gilets jaunes protests is a call for Macron’s resignation. The same president who in 2017 benefited from a mounting sense of dégagisme (out with them all) to beat all established candidates to the post, now finds himself the target of the very same sentiment.

He is constitutionally insulated in a way that May is not: there is no obvious, direct mechanism for removing the president merely because he has become unpopular. He has to want to resign – and for now, there is no evidence that Macron wishes to head for the exit. But that gilded, presidential perch contrasts uncomfortably with the highly symbolic high visibility of the protestors’ yellow jackets.

Both leaders made further concessions in a torrid week in mid-December: a promise to get further assurances on the Brexit withdrawal agreement on one side of the Channel, scrapping taxes and raising wages on the other. In London, the tone was defiant; in Paris, contrite. In neither case are the steps taken likely to suffice – and, in each case, other EU leaders can do little but offer warm words of comfort.

Yet the UK’s Brexit paralysis and the defiant stand-off in France each pose a serious threat to the stability of the EU. Neither development has an obvious solution or outcome, although Macron’s dilemma manages to make May’s script somehow more predictable, which is a feat in itself. This is because however UK domestic politics play out, many parties are at least braced for all scenarios, on a spectrum from no Brexit to no deal.

In France, developments are taking an uncharted course and the president’s attempts to restore his authority have so far met with limited success. Constitutional reform was already on the legislative table but has now been pushed back once more. In its current form, in any case, it already falls far short of the demands that are emerging from the groundswell of discontent.

A time of turbulence

Although the precise timing of the crisis in each country may well be a coincidence, the concurrence of French and British woes is not really all that surprising. Both leaders are in post at a time of turbulence. Both are governing electorates which have been sending signals of their rejection of the current political status quo for some time. Both have taken the idea of the “people” into a new era, galvanised by social media, where extreme opinions and fake news stoke fires and prod open wounds.

Political authority no longer speaks for itself. In France, the self-styled populist leaders who stalked the 2012 and 2017 French elections, Marine le Pen, and Jean-Luc Mélenchon, are just as outflanked by the gilets jaunes as the French president and the leaders of the political parties he left in ashes at the 2017 election.

In an alternative universe, what a time this would be to renew the vows of Franco-British friendship. As German chancellor Angela Merkel prepares to leave the European political stage, cross-Channel initiatives to redesign and improve existing cooperation – on migration, security and the environment, for starters – could take their place in the transnational efforts that are surely needed to strengthen Europe in tomorrow’s world. I’m not holding my breath.

(Helen Drake is Professor of French and European Studies and Director of Loughborough University London's Institute for Diplomacy and International Governance, Loughborough University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/may-defiant-macron-contrite-amid-crises-that-threaten-the-eus-stability-108541">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 Helen Drake By some freakish alignment of political firmaments, both Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron have lived the week from political hell. Both the British prime minister and French president face challenges to their very survival as national leader.

By Helen Drake By some freakish alignment of political firmaments, both Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron have lived the week from political hell. Both the British prime minister and French president face challenges to their very survival as national leader. On the face of it, their winter woes are surprisingly similar. The political authority of both Macron and May is under acute attack. Their public personas have been drained of credibility, and both have lost face even among their supporters. Neither leader enjoys a supportive media and neither can count on solid political party support. They are each playing for very high stakes. For May, the endgame is to bring about the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, no more, no less. She is unerring in her determination to see the job through and it is her crude simplification of an overtly complex and divisive process that has led her inexorably into her current predicament. Her torment has been played out within the walls of Westminster Palace. But these are walls in name only: every twist and turn of the prime minister’s efforts to square parliamentary sovereignty with the result of the 2016 referendum has been laid bare. As a result, Brexit inveigled itself once more on to the agenda of the most recent 2018 summit meeting of EU heads of state and government in Brussels. Macron attended the event in a newly altered state. Since his election in May 2017, Macron’s goal has been to gird France for a future which worries him, and he has been in a great hurry. Stasis is his enemy, transformation his friend. He knows no fear, sees no obstacles that cannot be surmounted, and the sky is his limit. The scale of his ambition and confidence is what has brought him to earth with a resounding bump. Damaged authority A leitmotif of the gilets jaunes protests is a call for Macron’s resignation. The same president who in 2017 benefited from a mounting sense of dégagisme (out with them all) to beat all established candidates to the post, now finds himself the target of the very same sentiment. He is constitutionally insulated in a way that May is not: there is no obvious, direct mechanism for removing the president merely because he has become unpopular. He has to want to resign – and for now, there is no evidence that Macron wishes to head for the exit. But that gilded, presidential perch contrasts uncomfortably with the highly symbolic high visibility of the protestors’ yellow jackets. Both leaders made further concessions in a torrid week in mid-December: a promise to get further assurances on the Brexit withdrawal agreement on one side of the Channel, scrapping taxes and raising wages on the other. In London, the tone was defiant; in Paris, contrite. In neither case are the steps taken likely to suffice – and, in each case, other EU leaders can do little but offer warm words of comfort. Yet the UK’s Brexit paralysis and the defiant stand-off in France each pose a serious threat to the stability of the EU. Neither development has an obvious solution or outcome, although Macron’s dilemma manages to make May’s script somehow more predictable, which is a feat in itself. This is because however UK domestic politics play out, many parties are at least braced for all scenarios, on a spectrum from no Brexit to no deal. In France, developments are taking an uncharted course and the president’s attempts to restore his authority have so far met with limited success. Constitutional reform was already on the legislative table but has now been pushed back once more. In its current form, in any case, it already falls far short of the demands that are emerging from the groundswell of discontent. A time of turbulence Although the precise timing of the crisis in each country may well be a coincidence, the concurrence of French and British woes is not really all that surprising. Both leaders are in post at a time of turbulence. Both are governing electorates which have been sending signals of their rejection of the current political status quo for some time. Both have taken the idea of the “people” into a new era, galvanised by social media, where extreme opinions and fake news stoke fires and prod open wounds. Political authority no longer speaks for itself. In France, the self-styled populist leaders who stalked the 2012 and 2017 French elections, Marine le Pen, and Jean-Luc Mélenchon, are just as outflanked by the gilets jaunes as the French president and the leaders of the political parties he left in ashes at the 2017 election. In an alternative universe, what a time this would be to renew the vows of Franco-British friendship. As German chancellor Angela Merkel prepares to leave the European political stage, cross-Channel initiatives to redesign and improve existing cooperation – on migration, security and the environment, for starters – could take their place in the transnational efforts that are surely needed to strengthen Europe in tomorrow’s world. I’m not holding my breath. (Helen Drake is Professor of French and European Studies and Director of Loughborough University London's Institute for Diplomacy and International Governance, Loughborough 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)

Theresa May defiant, Emmanuel Macron contrite amid crises that threaten the EU’s stability

By David Kipp and Melanie Muller

Issues of migration and forced displacement have dominated public debate in EU member states for the third consecutive year. The feeling of having lost control over immigration weighs heavily on them and has led to somewhat distorted perceptions of the issue of migration to Europe.

Against this backdrop, European policy has so far focused primarily on curbing irregular migration. This narrow focus prevents urgent migration and integration policy challenges from being addressed as well as the reform of the Common European Asylum System.&nbsp;

In order to deal straightforwardly with these challenges and develop strategies, four realities must be accepted.

First, the number of irregular arrivals in the European Union this year is expected to remain below 150,000, the same level as in the years before the so-called “refugee crisis.” Nevertheless, the EU continues to operate in crisis mode rather than addressing the issue of sustainable migration management.

Second, migration is a fact that can never be completely prevented. Migration policy arrangements with Turkey and Libya have contributed to a considerable reduction in the number of arrivals in Italy and Greece.&nbsp;

The example of Spain, however, shows that such arrangements are unlikely to be successful in the long term. Despite its longstanding cooperation with Morocco, Spain recorded double the arrivals this year compared to last.

A third fact is that a policy primarily aimed at containment has considerable side-effects. For example, the expansion of border controls promoted by the EU and the criminalisation of migration that was previously regarded as legal are shifting migration toward much more dangerous routes, such as in Niger.&nbsp;

Smuggler networks from other countries have assumed partial control of the transport.

In addition, the risk of drowning in the Mediterranean Sea during attempted crossings has increased. Out of every 1,000 attempts, four were fatal in 2014, increasing to 24 in 2018. The most dangerous is the central Mediterranean route, where the capacity for sea rescue has been reduced following pressure from the Italian government.

Thus far, the EU has outsourced its responsibility to the Libyan coastguard, which is picking up more and more migrants in the Mediterranean and bringing them back into the country. The number of people who have to remain in overcrowded detention centers under inhumane conditions has increased enormously as a result. The humanitarian plight of these people is therefore aggravated by EU policies.

Maritime rescue must be treated as a common European task and should be given appropriate significance in an expanded mandate for the European Border and Coast Guard, Frontex. However, the countries concerned on the European Union’s external border will only conceivably give their necessary consent if the member states agree on a common asylum procedure and a distribution mechanism for those entitled to protection.

Such an agreement is currently not in sight. Member states have agreed on actions outside the EU, such as the EU Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF), which was set up at a meeting of European and African leaders in Valletta in 2015 and has become the main instrument of EU external migration policy. The fund finances the development of border protection capacities in Libya and Niger, but also development policy projects. The latter are intended, for example, to compensate for the financial losses caused by the disappearance of the informal migration economy in Niger.

Powerful EU member states now demand that the fund should primarily concentrate on migration and border management and security cooperation with certain regions. This reduces funds for long-term development policy projects, for example, to support the local integration of refugees and internally displaced persons in the Horn of Africa so as to decrease the likelihood of further migration (known as secondary migration).

Migration mainly within Africa

The preoccupation with curbing migration is heightened by voices that fuel fears of an African “invasion” of Europe. This fear has no empirical basis.

The fourth fact that should be taken into account in the debate on EU migration policy is that the majority of migration movements take place within Africa. According to French demographer François Héran, this will continue to be the case. He reasons that the greatest population increases are to be expected in sub-Saharan Africa whose nationals emigrate relatively rarely compared to other regions. According to his prognosis, their share of the total population of OECD countries will increase from 0.4 per cent to only 2.4 per cent by 2050.

(David Kipp is a policy analyst and Melanie Müller is a research fellow)

(This article was originally published on Fair Observer. Read the <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/region/europe/eu-migration-policy-european-union-europe-news-headlines-today-23009/">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

By David Kipp and Melanie Muller Issues of migration and forced displacement have dominated public debate in EU member states for the third consecutive year. The feeling of having lost control over immigration weighs heavily on them and has led to somewhat distorted perceptions of the issue of migration to Europe.

By David Kipp and Melanie Muller Issues of migration and forced displacement have dominated public debate in EU member states for the third consecutive year. The feeling of having lost control over immigration weighs heavily on them and has led to somewhat distorted perceptions of the issue of migration to Europe. Against this backdrop, European policy has so far focused primarily on curbing irregular migration. This narrow focus prevents urgent migration and integration policy challenges from being addressed as well as the reform of the Common European Asylum System. In order to deal straightforwardly with these challenges and develop strategies, four realities must be accepted. First, the number of irregular arrivals in the European Union this year is expected to remain below 150,000, the same level as in the years before the so-called “refugee crisis.” Nevertheless, the EU continues to operate in crisis mode rather than addressing the issue of sustainable migration management. Second, migration is a fact that can never be completely prevented. Migration policy arrangements with Turkey and Libya have contributed to a considerable reduction in the number of arrivals in Italy and Greece. The example of Spain, however, shows that such arrangements are unlikely to be successful in the long term. Despite its longstanding cooperation with Morocco, Spain recorded double the arrivals this year compared to last. A third fact is that a policy primarily aimed at containment has considerable side-effects. For example, the expansion of border controls promoted by the EU and the criminalisation of migration that was previously regarded as legal are shifting migration toward much more dangerous routes, such as in Niger. Smuggler networks from other countries have assumed partial control of the transport. In addition, the risk of drowning in the Mediterranean Sea during attempted crossings has increased. Out of every 1,000 attempts, four were fatal in 2014, increasing to 24 in 2018. The most dangerous is the central Mediterranean route, where the capacity for sea rescue has been reduced following pressure from the Italian government. Thus far, the EU has outsourced its responsibility to the Libyan coastguard, which is picking up more and more migrants in the Mediterranean and bringing them back into the country. The number of people who have to remain in overcrowded detention centers under inhumane conditions has increased enormously as a result. The humanitarian plight of these people is therefore aggravated by EU policies. Maritime rescue must be treated as a common European task and should be given appropriate significance in an expanded mandate for the European Border and Coast Guard, Frontex. However, the countries concerned on the European Union’s external border will only conceivably give their necessary consent if the member states agree on a common asylum procedure and a distribution mechanism for those entitled to protection. Such an agreement is currently not in sight. Member states have agreed on actions outside the EU, such as the EU Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF), which was set up at a meeting of European and African leaders in Valletta in 2015 and has become the main instrument of EU external migration policy. The fund finances the development of border protection capacities in Libya and Niger, but also development policy projects. The latter are intended, for example, to compensate for the financial losses caused by the disappearance of the informal migration economy in Niger. Powerful EU member states now demand that the fund should primarily concentrate on migration and border management and security cooperation with certain regions. This reduces funds for long-term development policy projects, for example, to support the local integration of refugees and internally displaced persons in the Horn of Africa so as to decrease the likelihood of further migration (known as secondary migration). Migration mainly within Africa The preoccupation with curbing migration is heightened by voices that fuel fears of an African “invasion” of Europe. This fear has no empirical basis. The fourth fact that should be taken into account in the debate on EU migration policy is that the majority of migration movements take place within Africa. According to French demographer François Héran, this will continue to be the case. He reasons that the greatest population increases are to be expected in sub-Saharan Africa whose nationals emigrate relatively rarely compared to other regions. According to his prognosis, their share of the total population of OECD countries will increase from 0.4 per cent to only 2.4 per cent by 2050. (David Kipp is a policy analyst and Melanie Müller is a research fellow) (This article was originally published on Fair Observer. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

EU Migration Policy bears no relation to reality

Eu, News on Eu, stories on Eu, articles on Eu, Eu stories at Wion, Eu news, Eu latest news