Taking over as Britain's prime minister on Wednesday, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/boris-johnsons-use-of-verbal-flamboyance-unique-linguists-say-238008">Boris Johnson</a> is expected unveil a more diverse top team in a government to be tasked with delivering Brexit by the end of October, with or without a deal.

The former London mayor won the contest to succeed Theresa May on Tuesday by securing the leadership of the Conservative Party in a campaign that put the United Kingdom on course for a showdown with the European Union.

Johnson's cabinet choices will help to flesh out how he intends to manage the world's fifth-largest economy and its divorce from the EU at one of the most fateful moments in its modern history.

"Boris will build a cabinet showcasing all the talents within the party that truly reflect modern Britain," a source close to Johnson said.

May will leave Downing Street later on Wednesday to hand in her resignation to Queen Elizabeth, who will formally appoint Johnson.

With the pound stuck near two-year lows against the U.S. dollar due to rising concerns about a "no-deal" Brexit, investors are braced to see who will be handed the top roles such as finance minister, foreign secretary and Brexit minister.

A record number of ethnic minority politicians are expected to serve as ministers including Priti Patel, the former aid minister who resigned in 2017 over undisclosed meetings with Israeli officials, and employment minister Alok Sharma.

More women are also expected to serve as full cabinet members.

Oliver Dowden, once deputy chief-of-staff in David Cameron's administration, former sports minister Tracey Crouch, junior finance minister Robert Jenrick and pro-Brexit lawmaker Rishi Sunak are also in line for promotion.

Divorce deal

Interior minister Sajid Javid is widely tipped to stay in a top job and was spotted by <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/boris-johnson-wins-conservative-party-leadership-race-set-to-become-uk-pm-237941">British media </a>flanking Johnson as he arrived before lawmakers following his victory.

Two junior ministers have already quit over Johnson's plans, and finance minister Philip Hammond and justice minister David Gauke have both said they plan to resign before they are sacked.

In one of his first appointments before moving into Downing Street, Johnson poached senior Sky boss Andrew Griffith as his business adviser, tasked with repairing relations with the corporate sector ahead of Brexit.

The Daily Telegraph said Johnson will appoint career diplomat David Frost as European Union sherpa and adviser on Europe.

Britain will be now led by a flamboyant figure known for his ambition, untidy blond hair, flowery oratory and fragile command of policy detail.

The 2016 referendum showed a United Kingdom split over much more than the EU, and fuelled soul-searching about everything from regional secession and immigration to capitalism, the legacy of empire and what Britishness means in the modern world.

Johnson has pledged to negotiate a new divorce deal with the EU to secure a smooth transition. But if the bloc continues to refuse to renegotiate, he has promised to leave anyway - "do or die" - on the current agreed date of Oct. 31 - Halloween.

Many investors and economists say that such an abrupt step would rattle global markets and push the world's fifth largest economy into recession or even chaos.

Taking over as Britain's prime minister on Wednesday, Boris Johnson is expected unveil a more diverse top team in a government to be tasked with delivering Brexit by the end of October, with or without a deal.

Taking over as Britain's prime minister on Wednesday, Boris Johnson is expected unveil a more diverse top team in a government to be tasked with delivering Brexit by the end of October, with or without a deal. The former London mayor won the contest to succeed Theresa May on Tuesday by securing the leadership of the Conservative Party in a campaign that put the United Kingdom on course for a showdown with the European Union. Johnson's cabinet choices will help to flesh out how he intends to manage the world's fifth-largest economy and its divorce from the EU at one of the most fateful moments in its modern history. "Boris will build a cabinet showcasing all the talents within the party that truly reflect modern Britain," a source close to Johnson said. May will leave Downing Street later on Wednesday to hand in her resignation to Queen Elizabeth, who will formally appoint Johnson. With the pound stuck near two-year lows against the U.S. dollar due to rising concerns about a "no-deal" Brexit, investors are braced to see who will be handed the top roles such as finance minister, foreign secretary and Brexit minister. A record number of ethnic minority politicians are expected to serve as ministers including Priti Patel, the former aid minister who resigned in 2017 over undisclosed meetings with Israeli officials, and employment minister Alok Sharma. More women are also expected to serve as full cabinet members. Oliver Dowden, once deputy chief-of-staff in David Cameron's administration, former sports minister Tracey Crouch, junior finance minister Robert Jenrick and pro-Brexit lawmaker Rishi Sunak are also in line for promotion. Divorce deal Interior minister Sajid Javid is widely tipped to stay in a top job and was spotted by British media flanking Johnson as he arrived before lawmakers following his victory. Two junior ministers have already quit over Johnson's plans, and finance minister Philip Hammond and justice minister David Gauke have both said they plan to resign before they are sacked. In one of his first appointments before moving into Downing Street, Johnson poached senior Sky boss Andrew Griffith as his business adviser, tasked with repairing relations with the corporate sector ahead of Brexit. The Daily Telegraph said Johnson will appoint career diplomat David Frost as European Union sherpa and adviser on Europe. Britain will be now led by a flamboyant figure known for his ambition, untidy blond hair, flowery oratory and fragile command of policy detail. The 2016 referendum showed a United Kingdom split over much more than the EU, and fuelled soul-searching about everything from regional secession and immigration to capitalism, the legacy of empire and what Britishness means in the modern world. Johnson has pledged to negotiate a new divorce deal with the EU to secure a smooth transition. But if the bloc continues to refuse to renegotiate, he has promised to leave anyway - "do or die" - on the current agreed date of Oct. 31 - Halloween. Many investors and economists say that such an abrupt step would rattle global markets and push the world's fifth largest economy into recession or even chaos.

Stepping into power, Britain's Johnson seeks more diverse cabinet

The prospect of a "no deal" Brexit was fast becoming the central battle of the race to succeed Prime Minister Theresa May on Sunday, as environment minister Michael Gove became the latest candidate to declare.

May said on Friday she was quitting over her failure to deliver Brexit, potentially opening the way for a new leader who could seek a more divisive split with the European Union and lead to confrontation with the bloc or a possible parliamentary election.

Setting out their pitch to the Conservative Party's largely pro-Brexit membership who will decide the outcome of the contest, four of the leadership hopefuls have said Britain must leave the EU on Oct. 31 even if this means a no-deal Brexit.

"I will fight for a fairer deal in Brussels ... if not I will be clear we will leave on WTO terms in October," former Brexit minister Dominic Raab, who bookmakers rank as the second favourite to win, told BBC TV.

"If you're not willing to walk away from a negotiation, it doesn't focus the mind of the other side ... I will not ask for an extension."

Fellow contenders Esther McVey and Andrea Leadsom both made similar comments on Sunday, while former foreign minister Boris Johnson, the favourite to replace May, said on Friday: "We will leave the EU on October 31, deal or no deal."

Gove, a leading campaigner for Brexit during the 2016 referendum campaign and a candidate in the Conservative leadership contest that May ultimately won, told reporters on Sunday that he planned to run again.

"I am ready to unite the Conservative and Unionist Party, ready to deliver Brexit and ready to lead this great country," he said, without giving any detail on his plans for Brexit.

"A dangerous strategy"

The EU has said it will not reopen negotiations on the Withdrawal Agreement, which has been rejected by parliament three times, while British lawmakers have also repeatedly voted against the prospect of a no-deal exit.

Highlighting the deep splits within the governing party over the way forward on Brexit, several senior Conservatives, including leadership candidate Rory Stewart, on Sunday warned against pursuing the policy of leaving without a deal.

Finance minister Philip Hammond said parliament would be "vehemently opposed" to a no-deal strategy and a prime minister who ignored parliament "cannot expect to survive very long".

"I will urge all of my colleagues who are standing in this contest to embrace the concept of compromise ... going to parliament with a hard line absolutist view and daring parliament to accept it is quite a dangerous strategy," he told BBC TV.

Hammond said he could not support a no-deal strategy but declined to say what he would do if there was a vote of confidence in a government which adopted that policy.

"In 22 years in parliament I have never voted against the Conservatives ... and I don't want to have to start now contemplating such a course of action," he said.

The opposition Labour Party said it was seeking to work with other parties to try and block May's successor from taking Britain out of the EU without a deal.

"There is real threat now of an extremist Brexiteer becoming the leader of the Conservative Party and taking us over the cliff edge of a no deal," Labour's finance spokesman John McDonnell told Sky News. "We have got to move to block a no deal."

The deadlock over Brexit is expected to have hit both main parties when the results of the European Parliament elections are declared from 2100 GMT on Sunday, with Nigel Farage's Brexit Party, which backs a no-deal exit, predicted to come out on top.

The prospect of a "no deal" Brexit was fast becoming the central battle of the race to succeed Prime Minister Theresa May on Sunday, as environment minister Michael Gove became the latest candidate to declare.

The prospect of a "no deal" Brexit was fast becoming the central battle of the race to succeed Prime Minister Theresa May on Sunday, as environment minister Michael Gove became the latest candidate to declare. May said on Friday she was quitting over her failure to deliver Brexit, potentially opening the way for a new leader who could seek a more divisive split with the European Union and lead to confrontation with the bloc or a possible parliamentary election. Setting out their pitch to the Conservative Party's largely pro-Brexit membership who will decide the outcome of the contest, four of the leadership hopefuls have said Britain must leave the EU on Oct. 31 even if this means a no-deal Brexit. "I will fight for a fairer deal in Brussels ... if not I will be clear we will leave on WTO terms in October," former Brexit minister Dominic Raab, who bookmakers rank as the second favourite to win, told BBC TV. "If you're not willing to walk away from a negotiation, it doesn't focus the mind of the other side ... I will not ask for an extension." Fellow contenders Esther McVey and Andrea Leadsom both made similar comments on Sunday, while former foreign minister Boris Johnson, the favourite to replace May, said on Friday: "We will leave the EU on October 31, deal or no deal." Gove, a leading campaigner for Brexit during the 2016 referendum campaign and a candidate in the Conservative leadership contest that May ultimately won, told reporters on Sunday that he planned to run again. "I am ready to unite the Conservative and Unionist Party, ready to deliver Brexit and ready to lead this great country," he said, without giving any detail on his plans for Brexit. "A dangerous strategy" The EU has said it will not reopen negotiations on the Withdrawal Agreement, which has been rejected by parliament three times, while British lawmakers have also repeatedly voted against the prospect of a no-deal exit. Highlighting the deep splits within the governing party over the way forward on Brexit, several senior Conservatives, including leadership candidate Rory Stewart, on Sunday warned against pursuing the policy of leaving without a deal. Finance minister Philip Hammond said parliament would be "vehemently opposed" to a no-deal strategy and a prime minister who ignored parliament "cannot expect to survive very long". "I will urge all of my colleagues who are standing in this contest to embrace the concept of compromise ... going to parliament with a hard line absolutist view and daring parliament to accept it is quite a dangerous strategy," he told BBC TV. Hammond said he could not support a no-deal strategy but declined to say what he would do if there was a vote of confidence in a government which adopted that policy. "In 22 years in parliament I have never voted against the Conservatives ... and I don't want to have to start now contemplating such a course of action," he said. The opposition Labour Party said it was seeking to work with other parties to try and block May's successor from taking Britain out of the EU without a deal. "There is real threat now of an extremist Brexiteer becoming the leader of the Conservative Party and taking us over the cliff edge of a no deal," Labour's finance spokesman John McDonnell told Sky News. "We have got to move to block a no deal." The deadlock over Brexit is expected to have hit both main parties when the results of the European Parliament elections are declared from 2100 GMT on Sunday, with Nigel Farage's Brexit Party, which backs a no-deal exit, predicted to come out on top.

Race to succeed UK Prime Minister May centres on 'no deal' Brexit battle

European leaders gathered in Brussels on Wednesday to decide how long a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/british-mps-pass-law-to-block-no-deal-brexit-208897">Brexit delay</a> to grant <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/uk-pm-theresa-may-releases-video-statement-about-brexit-208696">British Prime Minister Theresa May</a> -- and under what conditions.

Without a postponement, Britain is due to crash out of the European Union at midnight on Friday under a "no-deal" Brexit that could trigger economic chaos. &nbsp;

May has embarked on a last-ditch battle to postpone Brexit from April 12 to June 30 to arrange an orderly departure -- but European leaders are expected to offer her a longer delay of up to a year.

"There are times when you need to give time," EU Council President Donald Tusk tweeted, as he issued summit invitations.

Summit host Tusk said the evidence of recent months gave EU leaders "little reason to believe" that British lawmakers will ratify the Brexit withdrawal treaty before May's preferred June 30 departure.

"In reality, granting such an extension would increase the risk of a rolling series of short extensions and emergency summits, creating new cliff-edge dates," he said, reflecting concern in EU capitals.

"One possibility would be a flexible extension, which would last only as long as necessary and no longer than one year," he said.

According to a draft copy of the summit conclusions that EU leaders were to receive and debate later in the day, they will agree to an extension to allow May time to ratify the withdrawal agreement.

"Such an extension should last only as long as necessary and, in any event, no longer than [XX.XX.XXXX]," the draft reads.

The other 27 EU leaders will thrash out what date to fill in the blanks on Wednesday.

"If the Withdrawal Agreement is ratified by both parties before this date, the withdrawal will take place on the first day of the following month," the draft, seen by AFP says.

If Britain is still in the European Union when EU parliamentary elections begin on May 23, it must take part in the vote.

"If the United Kingdom fails to live up to this obligation, the withdrawal will take place on 1 June 2019," the draft warns.

If an extension is agreed, Brussels will portray it as a concession to Britain, with some members -- particularly France -- not keen to see the disruptive Brexit drama drag on much longer.

But May insists she still wants to quickly ratify the withdrawal she agreed with EU leaders last November, but which has been rejected by British lawmakers, and to leave before the EU polls. &nbsp;

On Tuesday, May flew to Berlin to meet German Chancellor Angela Merkel, then on to Paris, where an aide to President Emmanuel Macron said France was open to solutions.&nbsp;

"We've never been closed to the idea of finding an alternative solution to 'no deal' within certain limits and not at any price," the Elysee source said.&nbsp;

Discussions in Brussels are to focus on the length of the delay -- the French source said a 12-month extension "seems too long" -- and arrangements to limit Britain's influence within the EU.

EU members want to ensure that a semi-detached Britain does not seek leverage in Brexit talks by intervening in choosing the next head of the European Commission or the next multi-year EU budget.

Talks with Labour

Britain was originally due to leave the EU on March 29, but Brussels agreed an extension after the British parliament rejected the withdrawal agreement negotiated with May.

The British premier is hoping a new period of extra time, if granted, will enable her to finally get a divorce deal through the legislature.

British MPs have rejected her deal three times, but May is now in talks with the opposition Labour party to try break the deadlock.

These discussions are moving slowly, and EU negotiator Michel Barnier said May must explain what postponement would achieve.

"The length of the extension must be linked to the purpose -- what it's for -- and that depends on what Mrs May will say to European leaders tomorrow," he said, after meeting EU ministers in Luxembourg.

A "no deal" -- in which Britain crashes out of the EU -- is still a possibility.&nbsp;

The International Monetary Fund said Tuesday that Britain risks a serious shock if it leaves the EU without an agreement.

And US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin warned American lawmakers: "I think at this point we need to be prepared for a hard Brexit as a very realistic outcome."

European leaders gathered in Brussels on Wednesday to decide how long a Brexit delay to grant British Prime Minister Theresa May -- and under what conditions. Without a postponement, Britain is due to crash out of the European Union at midnight on Friday under a "no-deal" Brexit that could trigger economic chaos.

European leaders gathered in Brussels on Wednesday to decide how long a Brexit delay to grant British Prime Minister Theresa May -- and under what conditions. Without a postponement, Britain is due to crash out of the European Union at midnight on Friday under a "no-deal" Brexit that could trigger economic chaos. May has embarked on a last-ditch battle to postpone Brexit from April 12 to June 30 to arrange an orderly departure -- but European leaders are expected to offer her a longer delay of up to a year. "There are times when you need to give time," EU Council President Donald Tusk tweeted, as he issued summit invitations. Summit host Tusk said the evidence of recent months gave EU leaders "little reason to believe" that British lawmakers will ratify the Brexit withdrawal treaty before May's preferred June 30 departure. "In reality, granting such an extension would increase the risk of a rolling series of short extensions and emergency summits, creating new cliff-edge dates," he said, reflecting concern in EU capitals. "One possibility would be a flexible extension, which would last only as long as necessary and no longer than one year," he said. According to a draft copy of the summit conclusions that EU leaders were to receive and debate later in the day, they will agree to an extension to allow May time to ratify the withdrawal agreement. "Such an extension should last only as long as necessary and, in any event, no longer than [XX.XX.XXXX]," the draft reads. The other 27 EU leaders will thrash out what date to fill in the blanks on Wednesday. "If the Withdrawal Agreement is ratified by both parties before this date, the withdrawal will take place on the first day of the following month," the draft, seen by AFP says. If Britain is still in the European Union when EU parliamentary elections begin on May 23, it must take part in the vote. "If the United Kingdom fails to live up to this obligation, the withdrawal will take place on 1 June 2019," the draft warns. If an extension is agreed, Brussels will portray it as a concession to Britain, with some members -- particularly France -- not keen to see the disruptive Brexit drama drag on much longer. But May insists she still wants to quickly ratify the withdrawal she agreed with EU leaders last November, but which has been rejected by British lawmakers, and to leave before the EU polls. On Tuesday, May flew to Berlin to meet German Chancellor Angela Merkel, then on to Paris, where an aide to President Emmanuel Macron said France was open to solutions. "We've never been closed to the idea of finding an alternative solution to 'no deal' within certain limits and not at any price," the Elysee source said. Discussions in Brussels are to focus on the length of the delay -- the French source said a 12-month extension "seems too long" -- and arrangements to limit Britain's influence within the EU. EU members want to ensure that a semi-detached Britain does not seek leverage in Brexit talks by intervening in choosing the next head of the European Commission or the next multi-year EU budget. Talks with Labour Britain was originally due to leave the EU on March 29, but Brussels agreed an extension after the British parliament rejected the withdrawal agreement negotiated with May. The British premier is hoping a new period of extra time, if granted, will enable her to finally get a divorce deal through the legislature. British MPs have rejected her deal three times, but May is now in talks with the opposition Labour party to try break the deadlock. These discussions are moving slowly, and EU negotiator Michel Barnier said May must explain what postponement would achieve. "The length of the extension must be linked to the purpose -- what it's for -- and that depends on what Mrs May will say to European leaders tomorrow," he said, after meeting EU ministers in Luxembourg. A "no deal" -- in which Britain crashes out of the EU -- is still a possibility. The International Monetary Fund said Tuesday that Britain risks a serious shock if it leaves the EU without an agreement. And US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin warned American lawmakers: "I think at this point we need to be prepared for a hard Brexit as a very realistic outcome."

EU leaders meet to decide another Brexit delay

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

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

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

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

The United Kingdom's attorney general has said the government's last-ditch legal changes to the Brexit agreement reduced but did not rule out the risk that the country could be indefinitely bound to the Irish backstop clause, jeopardizing the prime minister's ambitions to assuage rebellious party members as she puts the agreement to a parliamentary vote on Tuesday.&nbsp;

Geoffrey Cox, whose job it is to present the House of Commons with independent legal advice on the UK's withdrawal from the European Union before the so-called meaningful vote on Theresa May's deal, said in a statement, his opinion had not changed since he first brought it to the lower chamber of lawmaking last year.&nbsp;

"In my letter of 13 November 2018, I advised that the protocol [ie, the backstop] would endure indefinitely in international law and could not be brought to an end in the absence of a subsequent agreement," he said.

"This would remain the case even if parties were still negotiating many years later, and even if the parties believed that talks have clearly broken down and there was no prospect of a future relationship agreement."&nbsp;

The backstop, which looks to safeguard the soft border on the island of Ireland should Brexit talks collapse, proved hugely unpopular with pro-Brexit MPs in May's Conservative Party, who thought its potentially indefinite nature and the UK's inability to withdraw from it unilaterally, as per Cox's previous legal statement, eroded the UK's sovereignty and did not deliver a true withdrawal from the EU.&nbsp;

The Democratic Unionist Party, a right-wing outfit from Northern Ireland, also protested the backstop, saying it could keep the UK territory in Ireland bound to EU customs regulations to preserve the free-flowing border with the Republic of Ireland, an EU member state.&nbsp;

In a previous meaningful vote on Jan. 15, hardline Tories including Jacob Rees-Mogg, leader of the hardline pro-Brexit European Research Group, spearheaded a rebellion against May's deal and helped shoot it down by a House majority of 230; this historic defeat for a sitting UK PM was bellowed by a large number of MPs voting against Brexit altogether.&nbsp;

Soon after the defeat, the Commons passed an amendment requiring May to return to Brussels in search of legally-binding changes to the withdrawal agreement.&nbsp;

Speaking in Strasbourg following a meeting with EU leaders, May assured reporters she had secured the necessary legally-binding tweaks to ensure the UK would not be indefinitely tied to the backstop protocol, adding the government would also set out a mechanism which would "ultimately" allow the UK to unliterary "dis-apply" the measure should it see fit.&nbsp;

May was unable to reopen the withdrawal agreement itself, but revealed the changes as part of a "joint instrument with comparable legal weight."&nbsp;

In his statement, Cox said the legal add-ons could reduce the possibility the UK was indefinitely bound to the backstop.

The European Research Group, an affiliation of Tories who campaign for a harder Brexit, demanded the PM secure an ability to unilaterally abandon the backstop as part of her haul of legal alterations to the text.&nbsp;

But Cox contradicted that, too.&nbsp;

He said that, while in his political judgment that the EU and the UK would draw up a comprehensive plan to replace the backstop, the UK would nonetheless be unable to abandon the accord unilaterally.&nbsp;

"However, the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement," he said.&nbsp;

Cox delivered his legal advice to a full house at the Commons.&nbsp;

He earlier dismissed rumours that he had refused to change his legal advice following May's meetings with EU heads.&nbsp;

Responding to a suggestion to that end from prominent UK journalist Jon Snow, Cox replied on Twitter with a simple and quintessentially British message: "Bollocks."

His legal advice will likely dictate how the ERG decides to vote following Tuesday's debate.&nbsp;

If May loses once again, the Commons is scheduled to vote on two further motions: one on whether to embrace a no-deal Brexit and another on whether to extend the negotiations period, which had been set at two years, ending on Mar. 31.&nbsp;

Some 52 per cent of voters chose to leave the bloc in a referendum in June 2016.

The United Kingdom's attorney general has said the government's last-ditch legal changes to the Brexit agreement reduced but did not rule out the risk that the country could be indefinitely bound to the Irish backstop clause, jeopardizing the prime minister's ambitions to assuage rebellious party members as she puts the agreement to a parliamentary vote on Tuesday.

The United Kingdom's attorney general has said the government's last-ditch legal changes to the Brexit agreement reduced but did not rule out the risk that the country could be indefinitely bound to the Irish backstop clause, jeopardizing the prime minister's ambitions to assuage rebellious party members as she puts the agreement to a parliamentary vote on Tuesday. Geoffrey Cox, whose job it is to present the House of Commons with independent legal advice on the UK's withdrawal from the European Union before the so-called meaningful vote on Theresa May's deal, said in a statement, his opinion had not changed since he first brought it to the lower chamber of lawmaking last year. "In my letter of 13 November 2018, I advised that the protocol [ie, the backstop] would endure indefinitely in international law and could not be brought to an end in the absence of a subsequent agreement," he said. "This would remain the case even if parties were still negotiating many years later, and even if the parties believed that talks have clearly broken down and there was no prospect of a future relationship agreement." The backstop, which looks to safeguard the soft border on the island of Ireland should Brexit talks collapse, proved hugely unpopular with pro-Brexit MPs in May's Conservative Party, who thought its potentially indefinite nature and the UK's inability to withdraw from it unilaterally, as per Cox's previous legal statement, eroded the UK's sovereignty and did not deliver a true withdrawal from the EU. The Democratic Unionist Party, a right-wing outfit from Northern Ireland, also protested the backstop, saying it could keep the UK territory in Ireland bound to EU customs regulations to preserve the free-flowing border with the Republic of Ireland, an EU member state. In a previous meaningful vote on Jan. 15, hardline Tories including Jacob Rees-Mogg, leader of the hardline pro-Brexit European Research Group, spearheaded a rebellion against May's deal and helped shoot it down by a House majority of 230; this historic defeat for a sitting UK PM was bellowed by a large number of MPs voting against Brexit altogether. Soon after the defeat, the Commons passed an amendment requiring May to return to Brussels in search of legally-binding changes to the withdrawal agreement. Speaking in Strasbourg following a meeting with EU leaders, May assured reporters she had secured the necessary legally-binding tweaks to ensure the UK would not be indefinitely tied to the backstop protocol, adding the government would also set out a mechanism which would "ultimately" allow the UK to unliterary "dis-apply" the measure should it see fit. May was unable to reopen the withdrawal agreement itself, but revealed the changes as part of a "joint instrument with comparable legal weight." In his statement, Cox said the legal add-ons could reduce the possibility the UK was indefinitely bound to the backstop. The European Research Group, an affiliation of Tories who campaign for a harder Brexit, demanded the PM secure an ability to unilaterally abandon the backstop as part of her haul of legal alterations to the text. But Cox contradicted that, too. He said that, while in his political judgment that the EU and the UK would draw up a comprehensive plan to replace the backstop, the UK would nonetheless be unable to abandon the accord unilaterally. "However, the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement," he said. Cox delivered his legal advice to a full house at the Commons. He earlier dismissed rumours that he had refused to change his legal advice following May's meetings with EU heads. Responding to a suggestion to that end from prominent UK journalist Jon Snow, Cox replied on Twitter with a simple and quintessentially British message: "Bollocks." His legal advice will likely dictate how the ERG decides to vote following Tuesday's debate. If May loses once again, the Commons is scheduled to vote on two further motions: one on whether to embrace a no-deal Brexit and another on whether to extend the negotiations period, which had been set at two years, ending on Mar. 31. Some 52 per cent of voters chose to leave the bloc in a referendum in June 2016.

May's legal changes do not rule out indefinite backstop: UK Attorney General

Concerns are growing among the British public as the Brexit deadline day draws ever nearer, with confusion and uncertainty continuing as the possibility of the March 29 exit date being delayed increases.

British Prime Minister Theresa May announced on Tuesday that if the Brexit deal cannot be passed through parliament, then the question would be put to MPs to decide whether Britain will leave the European Union with no deal or vote to postpone Brexit.

Those on both sides of the debate are unhappy with May's handling of the issue, with leave campaigners particularly frustrated that the prime minister could go back on her word.

"She has said hundreds of times that we will leave the European Union on March 29. If she does not do that, there will be serious problems. She will have broken her promise. And also the law as it stands is that we are supposed to leave on that day. My concern is that we will just drag on and on and on. It will never be resolved," said a Brexit supporter surnamed King.

Many have also been disappointed by the plague of uncertainty which has hampered businesses in the country during the Brexit negotiation stage.

"Any businessman plans years ahead for how they are going to invest. They don't sit down and wait for her to say 'perhaps next week you will get an opportunity to vote'. They needed to know two years ago what their intentions were," said another disgruntled resident in London.

Meanwhile, the fear of the potential problems that a no deal Brexit could inflict on ordinary people is also one of the major talking points.

"There are lots of people within parliament that actually would be very happy for us to crash out with no deal cause they won't hurt. It'll be the ordinary people that hurt and they don't care. Well, I'm hopeful that we'll get a referendum on May's deal. That'll be a choice given to us between her deal and remain. And I shall be voting for remain," said Roy Morton, another resident. 
&nbsp;

Concerns are growing among the British public as the Brexit deadline day draws ever nearer, with confusion and uncertainty continuing as the possibility of the March 29 exit date being delayed increases.

Concerns are growing among the British public as the Brexit deadline day draws ever nearer, with confusion and uncertainty continuing as the possibility of the March 29 exit date being delayed increases. British Prime Minister Theresa May announced on Tuesday that if the Brexit deal cannot be passed through parliament, then the question would be put to MPs to decide whether Britain will leave the European Union with no deal or vote to postpone Brexit. Those on both sides of the debate are unhappy with May's handling of the issue, with leave campaigners particularly frustrated that the prime minister could go back on her word. "She has said hundreds of times that we will leave the European Union on March 29. If she does not do that, there will be serious problems. She will have broken her promise. And also the law as it stands is that we are supposed to leave on that day. My concern is that we will just drag on and on and on. It will never be resolved," said a Brexit supporter surnamed King. Many have also been disappointed by the plague of uncertainty which has hampered businesses in the country during the Brexit negotiation stage. "Any businessman plans years ahead for how they are going to invest. They don't sit down and wait for her to say 'perhaps next week you will get an opportunity to vote'. They needed to know two years ago what their intentions were," said another disgruntled resident in London. Meanwhile, the fear of the potential problems that a no deal Brexit could inflict on ordinary people is also one of the major talking points. "There are lots of people within parliament that actually would be very happy for us to crash out with no deal cause they won't hurt. It'll be the ordinary people that hurt and they don't care. Well, I'm hopeful that we'll get a referendum on May's deal. That'll be a choice given to us between her deal and remain. And I shall be voting for remain," said Roy Morton, another resident.

Concerns of possible Brexit delay growing among British public

By Simon Usherwood

A popular view in the UK is that the EU is implacable and immovable on the question of the Brexit backstop. But a more careful reading of statements from senior EU officials and from figures in the member states suggests that there is some room for manoeuvre – albeit within carefully prescribed limits.

The backstop is intended to provide a safety net for arrangements on the UK-Ireland border, should it not be possible to agree on a new relationship between the UK and EU by the end of the Brexit transition period (which stops by December 2022 at the latest). It does this by keeping Northern Ireland closely aligned to EU rules, while also creating a UK-wide customs arrangement, all designed to avoid border controls, for as long as needed to get to that new relationship.

There are three roots to the backstop concept: one principled, one legal and one pragmatic.

The principled motivation is the desire to protect the interests of member states. The value of collective action at a European level comes with a requirement to ensure that no member is disadvantaged in relation to non-members. The fact that the UK is moving from member to non-member status means that the concerns of Dublin will always carry more weight than those of London.

This runs into the legal concern. The EU is a rules-based organisation – it can’t make decisions based on informal or emotive buy-in from its citizens. It must ultimately follow the frameworks it has set for itself. Thus, the obligations of the Good Friday Agreement count for a considerable amount. The same goes for the EU’s own requirements for market integration. It cannot allow access to the single market to a country that won’t commit to the free movement of workers across borders.

Third, World Trade Organisation commitments require checks and controls at the edge of a customs union and a single market. Seen in this light, the backstop is an effort to square the multiple circles of different legal constraints, by creating a structure that removes differences in regulation between the UK and EU. In so doing, the UK will effectively be acting – either as a whole or with part of its territory – as a member of several key EU policies.

All of this is reinforced by the pragmatic aspect: in Brussels, the UK is not seen&nbsp;as a reliable partner, given its endless vacillations over Brexit, in both procedural and substantive terms. The numerous public statements from senior British politicians about their desire to completely change or even tear up the backstop creates the strong impression that the UK’s commitments are less than concrete. This does not create much trust in European capitals, pointing to the need to have binding legal text to pin the UK down.

When UK prime minister Theresa May supported the Brady amendment to her Brexit deal on January 29 and agreed to go back to Brussels to seek changes to the backstop, it merely confirmed for many in the EU that there is a significant danger of discussions on the Irish border poisoning the entire withdrawal agreement.

Stalemate

So, given all this, how could the EU move on this issue? The three roots point towards inflexibility but it is important to recall that the EU is not an enthusiastic supporter of the backstop on its own terms. Instead, it is tolerated as the least worst option, given the constraints. Most obviously, the UK-wide temporary customs arrangement was a substantial concession to the British government, while all involved on the EU side of negotiations have repeatedly stressed their desire to see the backstop used only as a last resort and only until another arrangement can be found.

If another proposal were to be put on the table that satisfied the EU’s various needs – protection of its members’ interests and the integrity of EU policies on trade and regulation – then it would certainly be discussed and considered seriously. However, after two years of research and negotiation, the Commission and member states do not see any viable alternative, given the UK’s stated preference to leave the single market and customs union.

This comes back to the uncertainty over the UK’s intentions. Movement on the preferred form of the future EU-UK relationship (for example, to include participation in a full customs union or in the single market) would be the most obvious factor that could change, affecting the nature and extent of the backstop. But any policy change by the British government would need to be backed by a solid majority in parliament.

And this is the key barrier to EU flexibility. At present, the British political system looks blocked. Concessions on even one part of the backstop might turn out to be the thin end of a thick wedge – Tory backbenchers might feel emboldened to require the government to renegotiate for yet more. Without a clear and definitive line from the UK, the EU is liable to keep its counsel and hold its line.

(Simon Usherwood is Reader in Politics, University of Surrey)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-could-the-eu-really-be-convinced-to-budge-on-the-backstop-111515">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 Simon Usherwood A popular view in the UK is that the EU is implacable and immovable on the question of the Brexit backstop. But a more careful reading of statements from senior EU officials and from figures in the member states suggests that there is some room for manoeuvre – albeit within carefully prescribed limits.

By Simon Usherwood A popular view in the UK is that the EU is implacable and immovable on the question of the Brexit backstop. But a more careful reading of statements from senior EU officials and from figures in the member states suggests that there is some room for manoeuvre – albeit within carefully prescribed limits. The backstop is intended to provide a safety net for arrangements on the UK-Ireland border, should it not be possible to agree on a new relationship between the UK and EU by the end of the Brexit transition period (which stops by December 2022 at the latest). It does this by keeping Northern Ireland closely aligned to EU rules, while also creating a UK-wide customs arrangement, all designed to avoid border controls, for as long as needed to get to that new relationship. There are three roots to the backstop concept: one principled, one legal and one pragmatic. The principled motivation is the desire to protect the interests of member states. The value of collective action at a European level comes with a requirement to ensure that no member is disadvantaged in relation to non-members. The fact that the UK is moving from member to non-member status means that the concerns of Dublin will always carry more weight than those of London. This runs into the legal concern. The EU is a rules-based organisation – it can’t make decisions based on informal or emotive buy-in from its citizens. It must ultimately follow the frameworks it has set for itself. Thus, the obligations of the Good Friday Agreement count for a considerable amount. The same goes for the EU’s own requirements for market integration. It cannot allow access to the single market to a country that won’t commit to the free movement of workers across borders. Third, World Trade Organisation commitments require checks and controls at the edge of a customs union and a single market. Seen in this light, the backstop is an effort to square the multiple circles of different legal constraints, by creating a structure that removes differences in regulation between the UK and EU. In so doing, the UK will effectively be acting – either as a whole or with part of its territory – as a member of several key EU policies. All of this is reinforced by the pragmatic aspect: in Brussels, the UK is not seen as a reliable partner, given its endless vacillations over Brexit, in both procedural and substantive terms. The numerous public statements from senior British politicians about their desire to completely change or even tear up the backstop creates the strong impression that the UK’s commitments are less than concrete. This does not create much trust in European capitals, pointing to the need to have binding legal text to pin the UK down. When UK prime minister Theresa May supported the Brady amendment to her Brexit deal on January 29 and agreed to go back to Brussels to seek changes to the backstop, it merely confirmed for many in the EU that there is a significant danger of discussions on the Irish border poisoning the entire withdrawal agreement. Stalemate So, given all this, how could the EU move on this issue? The three roots point towards inflexibility but it is important to recall that the EU is not an enthusiastic supporter of the backstop on its own terms. Instead, it is tolerated as the least worst option, given the constraints. Most obviously, the UK-wide temporary customs arrangement was a substantial concession to the British government, while all involved on the EU side of negotiations have repeatedly stressed their desire to see the backstop used only as a last resort and only until another arrangement can be found. If another proposal were to be put on the table that satisfied the EU’s various needs – protection of its members’ interests and the integrity of EU policies on trade and regulation – then it would certainly be discussed and considered seriously. However, after two years of research and negotiation, the Commission and member states do not see any viable alternative, given the UK’s stated preference to leave the single market and customs union. This comes back to the uncertainty over the UK’s intentions. Movement on the preferred form of the future EU-UK relationship (for example, to include participation in a full customs union or in the single market) would be the most obvious factor that could change, affecting the nature and extent of the backstop. But any policy change by the British government would need to be backed by a solid majority in parliament. And this is the key barrier to EU flexibility. At present, the British political system looks blocked. Concessions on even one part of the backstop might turn out to be the thin end of a thick wedge – Tory backbenchers might feel emboldened to require the government to renegotiate for yet more. Without a clear and definitive line from the UK, the EU is liable to keep its counsel and hold its line. (Simon Usherwood is Reader in Politics, University of Surrey) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Brexit: Could the EU really be convinced to budge on the backstop?

It would be irresponsible for the European Union to refuse to reopen negotiations over <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/queen-elizabeth-to-be-evacuated-in-case-of-brexit-unrest-report-194679">Britain's exit deal</a>, British trade minister Liam Fox said in an interview aired on Sunday.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/british-pm-theresa-may-says-she-will-seek-pragmatic-brexit-solution-in-brussels-194688">British Prime Minister Theresa May</a> has said she is seeking changes to the Withdrawal Agreement she agreed with Brussels last year in order to win the support of parliament. The EU has said the deal cannot be renegotiated.

"Are they really saying that they would rather not negotiate and end up in a 'no-deal' position?" Fox told Sky News in a pre-recorded interview. "It is in all our interests to get to that agreement and for the EU to say we are not going to even discuss it seems to me to be quite irresponsible."

With less than two months until Britain is due to leave the European Union on March 29, the opposition Labour Party has said it is now inevitable that the government will have to request an extension to the Article 50 exit negotiation period.

Fox, who has previously spoken out strongly against delaying the exit date, said extending the negotiations without a deal in place would not solve anything, but it was "a very different argument" if Britain just needed more time to get the necessary legislation in place for a smooth exit.

He is the second senior minister to suggest such a delay may be needed, after Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said on Thursday Britain may need time to get legislation through.

"There is a big difference between if we had an agreement and we need some time to get the legalities done, that is one thing," Fox said. "I think to extend simply because we hadn’t reached an agreement would not provide any impetus for that agreement to be reached."

Fox said Britain would "be able to deal" with leaving the bloc without an agreement but it would not be in the country's interests.

It would be irresponsible for the European Union to refuse to reopen negotiations over Britain's exit deal, British trade minister Liam Fox said in an interview aired on Sunday.

It would be irresponsible for the European Union to refuse to reopen negotiations over Britain's exit deal, British trade minister Liam Fox said in an interview aired on Sunday. British Prime Minister Theresa May has said she is seeking changes to the Withdrawal Agreement she agreed with Brussels last year in order to win the support of parliament. The EU has said the deal cannot be renegotiated. "Are they really saying that they would rather not negotiate and end up in a 'no-deal' position?" Fox told Sky News in a pre-recorded interview. "It is in all our interests to get to that agreement and for the EU to say we are not going to even discuss it seems to me to be quite irresponsible." With less than two months until Britain is due to leave the European Union on March 29, the opposition Labour Party has said it is now inevitable that the government will have to request an extension to the Article 50 exit negotiation period. Fox, who has previously spoken out strongly against delaying the exit date, said extending the negotiations without a deal in place would not solve anything, but it was "a very different argument" if Britain just needed more time to get the necessary legislation in place for a smooth exit. He is the second senior minister to suggest such a delay may be needed, after Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said on Thursday Britain may need time to get legislation through. "There is a big difference between if we had an agreement and we need some time to get the legalities done, that is one thing," Fox said. "I think to extend simply because we hadn’t reached an agreement would not provide any impetus for that agreement to be reached." Fox said Britain would "be able to deal" with leaving the bloc without an agreement but it would not be in the country's interests.

UK trade minister says EU 'irresponsible' to refuse to reopen Brexit deal

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

The EU and European governments warned Tuesday that the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/uk-parliament-votes-down-pm-mays-eu-brexit-deal-by-230-votes-190586">British parliament's rejection of a Brexit deal</a> heightened the risk of a disorderly withdrawal from the bloc.

Following are some of the key reactions to the vote, which saw MPs vote by a massive 432 to 202 votes against the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/brexit-in-dates-from-leave-shock-to-no-confidence-vote-183632">agreement</a>:

European Union

"I urge the United Kingdom to clarify its intentions as soon as possible. Time is almost up," -- European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker.

"The Withdrawal Agreement is a fair compromise and the best possible deal. It reduces the damage caused by Brexit for citizens and businesses across Europe. It is the only way to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.

"The risk of a disorderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom has increased with this evening's vote. While we do not want this to happen, the European Commission will continue its contingency work to help ensure the EU is fully prepared."

- "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?" -- EU Council president Donald Tusk, who added the remaining EU27 "will remain united".

- "It's now up to the British government to say what the next stage is. The EU will remain united and determined to find a deal." -- The EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier.

Germany

- "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)." -- German Finance Minister and Vice Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

-"A hard Brexit will be the worst of all options." -- Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, leader of Chancellor Angela Merkel's centre-right CDU party and her likely successor.

France

- "The pressure is mainly on them." -- President Emmanuel Macron, referring to Britain.

The British people would be "the biggest losers" of a no-deal option, he said.

"Either way, we will have to negotiate a transition period with them because the British cannot afford to no longer have planes taking off or landing at home, and their supermarkets, as much as 70 per cent, is supplied with (products) from continental Europe."

Ireland

"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," government statement.

Austria&nbsp;

-"In any case, there will be no renegotiations on the withdrawal agreement." -- &nbsp;Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, in a tweet.

Spain

-"An unordered exit would be negative for the EU and catastrophic for the UK." -- Spanish premier Pedro Sanchez.

The EU and European governments warned Tuesday that the British parliament's rejection of a Brexit deal heightened the risk of a disorderly withdrawal from the bloc.

The EU and European governments warned Tuesday that the British parliament's rejection of a Brexit deal heightened the risk of a disorderly withdrawal from the bloc. Following are some of the key reactions to the vote, which saw MPs vote by a massive 432 to 202 votes against the agreement: European Union "I urge the United Kingdom to clarify its intentions as soon as possible. Time is almost up," -- European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker. "The Withdrawal Agreement is a fair compromise and the best possible deal. It reduces the damage caused by Brexit for citizens and businesses across Europe. It is the only way to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. "The risk of a disorderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom has increased with this evening's vote. While we do not want this to happen, the European Commission will continue its contingency work to help ensure the EU is fully prepared." - "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?" -- EU Council president Donald Tusk, who added the remaining EU27 "will remain united". - "It's now up to the British government to say what the next stage is. The EU will remain united and determined to find a deal." -- The EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier. Germany - "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)." -- German Finance Minister and Vice Chancellor Olaf Scholz. -"A hard Brexit will be the worst of all options." -- Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, leader of Chancellor Angela Merkel's centre-right CDU party and her likely successor. France - "The pressure is mainly on them." -- President Emmanuel Macron, referring to Britain. The British people would be "the biggest losers" of a no-deal option, he said. "Either way, we will have to negotiate a transition period with them because the British cannot afford to no longer have planes taking off or landing at home, and their supermarkets, as much as 70 per cent, is supplied with (products) from continental Europe." Ireland "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," government statement. Austria -"In any case, there will be no renegotiations on the withdrawal agreement." -- Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, in a tweet. Spain -"An unordered exit would be negative for the EU and catastrophic for the UK." -- Spanish premier Pedro Sanchez.

How Europe reacted to Brexit deal defeat

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Thursday he hoped Britain would avoid crashing out of the European Union without an agreement, as he threw his support behind the government's contentious Brexit deal days before a vote by MPs.

Flanked by British Prime Minister Theresa May during a visit to London, Abe said Japanese businesses "very much welcomed" her draft divorce deal, which a majority of British lawmakers look set to reject in parliament next Tuesday amid fierce opposition.

"We truly hope that a no-deal Brexit will be avoided and in fact that is the... wish of the whole world," the Japanese leader told a Downing Street press conference.

"This draft agreement for transition and legal stability for Japanese businesses is very much welcomed," he added.

The endorsement came as pressure grew on May to rule out a no-deal Brexit if her agreement is rejected by MPs next week.

Business minister Greg Clark broke ranks earlier Thursday to warn that leaving the European Union on March 29 with no agreement in place would be a calamity.

It would be "a disastrous situation in which we move to the most rudimentary terms of trade with our closest partners," he told BBC radio.

However, May reiterated the only way for Britain to avoid leaving without an agreement was to back her plan.

"There is a good deal on the table," she said. "I want to see this deal getting through parliament."

Triple blow

Brexit-supporting Conservative MPs are opposed to the deal, arguing it leaves the country too closely tied to Europe, and May has already pulled the vote once with defeat looming.

Most MPs supported staying in the EU in the 2016 referendum, and many have vowed to do everything within their power to prevent a no-deal scenario.

But unless Britain actively decides to delay or revoke the legal process, it will leave the bloc at the end of March regardless.

In such a scenario, it would be forced to trade with the EU on World Trade Organization terms, which could mean much higher tariffs for some products such as cars.

Japanese firms have invested billions of pounds in Britain, and are especially crucial in the car industry, using the country as a business-friendly home from which to trade across the continent.

"Even post-Brexit Japan intends to maintain this very good relationship," Abe said when asked if Britain was jeopardising this.&nbsp;

"We truly hope that more investment will be done by Japanese businesses in the United Kingdom."

However the British car sector suffered a triple blow on Thursday when three of its biggest manufacturers, including Japanese firm Honda and US maker Ford, announced job and production cuts.

Indian-owned carmaker Jaguar Land Rover announced the largest redundancies, with plans to reduce its 44,000 workforce by 4,500 under plans to make £2.5 billion of cost savings.

May and Abe pledged new cooperation on robotics and artificial intelligence, while Japan also announced an end to a 13-year ban on British beef and lamb.

General election threat

May faces daunting odds in getting her deal passed, and was dealt a stinging defeat on Wednesday when MPs voted for an amendment demanding she produce new plans within three days if the agreement is voted down.

Aiming to capitalise on her weakness, opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn on Thursday made a Brexit speech in Wakefield, northern England, in which he called for a general election to resolve the deadlock.

"If the government cannot pass its most important legislation, then there must be a general election at the earliest opportunity," he said.

Corbyn has said he will seek a vote of no confidence in the government if it loses next week's Brexit vote, which could force fresh elections.

Many in his party hope that he will call for a second referendum, but the veteran leftist, a long-time critic of the European Union, has so far resisted.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Thursday he hoped Britain would avoid crashing out of the European Union without an agreement, as he threw his support behind the government's contentious Brexit deal days before a vote by MPs.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Thursday he hoped Britain would avoid crashing out of the European Union without an agreement, as he threw his support behind the government's contentious Brexit deal days before a vote by MPs. Flanked by British Prime Minister Theresa May during a visit to London, Abe said Japanese businesses "very much welcomed" her draft divorce deal, which a majority of British lawmakers look set to reject in parliament next Tuesday amid fierce opposition. "We truly hope that a no-deal Brexit will be avoided and in fact that is the... wish of the whole world," the Japanese leader told a Downing Street press conference. "This draft agreement for transition and legal stability for Japanese businesses is very much welcomed," he added. The endorsement came as pressure grew on May to rule out a no-deal Brexit if her agreement is rejected by MPs next week. Business minister Greg Clark broke ranks earlier Thursday to warn that leaving the European Union on March 29 with no agreement in place would be a calamity. It would be "a disastrous situation in which we move to the most rudimentary terms of trade with our closest partners," he told BBC radio. However, May reiterated the only way for Britain to avoid leaving without an agreement was to back her plan. "There is a good deal on the table," she said. "I want to see this deal getting through parliament." Triple blow Brexit-supporting Conservative MPs are opposed to the deal, arguing it leaves the country too closely tied to Europe, and May has already pulled the vote once with defeat looming. Most MPs supported staying in the EU in the 2016 referendum, and many have vowed to do everything within their power to prevent a no-deal scenario. But unless Britain actively decides to delay or revoke the legal process, it will leave the bloc at the end of March regardless. In such a scenario, it would be forced to trade with the EU on World Trade Organization terms, which could mean much higher tariffs for some products such as cars. Japanese firms have invested billions of pounds in Britain, and are especially crucial in the car industry, using the country as a business-friendly home from which to trade across the continent. "Even post-Brexit Japan intends to maintain this very good relationship," Abe said when asked if Britain was jeopardising this. "We truly hope that more investment will be done by Japanese businesses in the United Kingdom." However the British car sector suffered a triple blow on Thursday when three of its biggest manufacturers, including Japanese firm Honda and US maker Ford, announced job and production cuts. Indian-owned carmaker Jaguar Land Rover announced the largest redundancies, with plans to reduce its 44,000 workforce by 4,500 under plans to make £2.5 billion of cost savings. May and Abe pledged new cooperation on robotics and artificial intelligence, while Japan also announced an end to a 13-year ban on British beef and lamb. General election threat May faces daunting odds in getting her deal passed, and was dealt a stinging defeat on Wednesday when MPs voted for an amendment demanding she produce new plans within three days if the agreement is voted down. Aiming to capitalise on her weakness, opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn on Thursday made a Brexit speech in Wakefield, northern England, in which he called for a general election to resolve the deadlock. "If the government cannot pass its most important legislation, then there must be a general election at the earliest opportunity," he said. Corbyn has said he will seek a vote of no confidence in the government if it loses next week's Brexit vote, which could force fresh elections. Many in his party hope that he will call for a second referendum, but the veteran leftist, a long-time critic of the European Union, has so far resisted.

Japanese PM voices hope Britain can avoid no-deal Brexit

Ireland will ramp up its plans for a no-deal Brexit including accelerating the recruitment of 1,000 customs officials and veterinary inspectors to work at ports and airports, Foreign Minister Simon Coveney said on Tuesday.

Coveney will bring a detailed paper to cabinet on Tuesday on preparations for various Brexit scenarios, including the possibility that Britain will crash out of the European Union without a deal that he said the government must now gear up for.

"We are now actively, not only preparing for that, but taking actions to ensure that if necessary we will be ready on March 29 for Britain to leave the EU without a deal," Simon Coveney told Irish national broadcaster RTE, adding that he still thought a no deal Brexit was unlikely.

Dublin has begun the process of hiring enough veterinary inspectors and customs officials to prepare for the likely changes to trade between Ireland and Britain that would result even in the case of an orderly exit from the EU.

However, Coveney said that rather than having to have those officials in place in two years time, the recruitment would have to be significantly accelerated while senior civil servants would also gear up to put other preparations in place.

With close, intertwined trading links to the United Kingdom and a shared land border, Ireland's fast growing economy is widely considered the most at risk in the rest of the EU when its neighbour leaves the bloc.

The gap between 10-year bond yields in Ireland and those in Germany - considered the safest in the euro zone - hit its widest level in six months at 68 basis points on the Brexit uncertainty.

Ireland has insisted that it will make no such contingency plans along the land border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, the future of which is central to British Prime Minister Theresa May`s problems in winning parliamentary support for her Brexit deal.

After she postponed a vote on the deal on Monday, Coveney said he did not believe the wording of the withdrawal agreement would change "at all", echoing a view shared throughout the EU.

Coveney noted that May strongly defended the so-called Irish "backstop", the problematic insurance policy to ensure no return to a hard border on the island of Ireland, and said he expected EU leaders could provide an additional declaration that the mechanism is just a temporary, fall back option.

"I hope we can provide her with the reassurance she needs now to be able to go back convincingly to Westminster to show that the backstop is not something to be feared by the British parliament but actually something that is very much consistent with the responsibilities of both the British government and Irish government to the people of the island," he said.

Ireland will ramp up its plans for a no-deal Brexit including accelerating the recruitment of 1,000 customs officials and veterinary inspectors to work at ports and airports, Foreign Minister Simon Coveney said on Tuesday.

Ireland will ramp up its plans for a no-deal Brexit including accelerating the recruitment of 1,000 customs officials and veterinary inspectors to work at ports and airports, Foreign Minister Simon Coveney said on Tuesday. Coveney will bring a detailed paper to cabinet on Tuesday on preparations for various Brexit scenarios, including the possibility that Britain will crash out of the European Union without a deal that he said the government must now gear up for. "We are now actively, not only preparing for that, but taking actions to ensure that if necessary we will be ready on March 29 for Britain to leave the EU without a deal," Simon Coveney told Irish national broadcaster RTE, adding that he still thought a no deal Brexit was unlikely. Dublin has begun the process of hiring enough veterinary inspectors and customs officials to prepare for the likely changes to trade between Ireland and Britain that would result even in the case of an orderly exit from the EU. However, Coveney said that rather than having to have those officials in place in two years time, the recruitment would have to be significantly accelerated while senior civil servants would also gear up to put other preparations in place. With close, intertwined trading links to the United Kingdom and a shared land border, Ireland's fast growing economy is widely considered the most at risk in the rest of the EU when its neighbour leaves the bloc. The gap between 10-year bond yields in Ireland and those in Germany - considered the safest in the euro zone - hit its widest level in six months at 68 basis points on the Brexit uncertainty. Ireland has insisted that it will make no such contingency plans along the land border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, the future of which is central to British Prime Minister Theresa May`s problems in winning parliamentary support for her Brexit deal. After she postponed a vote on the deal on Monday, Coveney said he did not believe the wording of the withdrawal agreement would change "at all", echoing a view shared throughout the EU. Coveney noted that May strongly defended the so-called Irish "backstop", the problematic insurance policy to ensure no return to a hard border on the island of Ireland, and said he expected EU leaders could provide an additional declaration that the mechanism is just a temporary, fall back option. "I hope we can provide her with the reassurance she needs now to be able to go back convincingly to Westminster to show that the backstop is not something to be feared by the British parliament but actually something that is very much consistent with the responsibilities of both the British government and Irish government to the people of the island," he said.

Ireland to ramp up preparations for 'no deal' Brexit: Minister

By Nikos Skoutaris

British Prime Minister Theresa May has insisted that the result of the Brexit referendum “was a vote to take control of our borders”. In order to do that, the UK will be leaving both the EU single market and the customs union. At the same time, May’s government has committed to protecting the Good Friday Agreement by not accepting any physical infrastructure at the Irish land border. So, the UK and the EU have been facing an almost unsolvable riddle. How can they keep open a land border between an EU member state and a country that is outside the single market and the customs union?

The text of the political agreement reached between the UK and EU in December 2017 included a formula to square the circle. It stated that the aim of future negotiations would be to address the challenge of the Irish border through the overall EU-UK relationship. If the final withdrawal agreement doesn’t provide a frictionless invisible border, then “specific solutions” will apply to Northern Ireland. But if the UK and the EU cannot agree on those specific solutions, then Northern Ireland or the UK as a whole will remain aligned to the single market and the customs union.

Since then, the UK and EU negotiators have struggled to find a legally operative text that would both fulfil the commitment to keep the land border open and respect the political sensitivities of all the interested parties. Below are the proposals on the table.

The EU backstop

The first attempt to legally codify the December 2017 commitment came in the Draft Withdrawal Treaty published by the European Union in February 2018. This proposed setting up a common regulatory area comprising the European Union and Northern Ireland. The region would, therefore, remain in the EU customs territory. May vehemently rejected the plan noting that “no UK prime minister could agree to it”.

The main problem with the suggested arrangement is that it will create a customs border in the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. This is why EU negotiator Michel Barnier tried to de-dramatise the proposed solution by insisting that the whole arrangement creates neither a land nor a sea border. It is merely “a set of technical checks and controls”.

Arlene Foster, leader of Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party, insists that “the entirety of the UK should be leaving the single market and the customs union”. She has threatened to withdraw the parliamentary support on which May’s government relies if Northern Ireland is treated differently to the UK after Brexit.

The UK backstop 
 
In June 2017, the UK government published its own counter-proposal for a backstop arrangement. The biggest difference between the two proposals is that the UK’s applies to the whole country and not just to Northern Ireland. The entire territory of the UK and the Channel Islands would remain part of the customs territory of the European Union, even after the end of the transition period in December 2020.

However, it is not entirely clear whether under this solution there would also be regulatory alignment between the UK and the EU, keeping the UK effectively within a significant part of the single market. Be that as it may, such an arrangement respects the DUP’s red lines but angers Eurosceptic MPs who do not welcome the prospect of the UK being aligned with EU rules in the long term. This group could vote against such a deal when it reaches parliament.

A backstop to a backstop

More problematic, from an EU point of view, is that May insists that the backstop should be a “temporary solution” because the UK does not want to be “stuck permanently in single customs territory, unable to do meaningful trade deals”. Given that the UK insists on legally entrenching the deadline of the backstop option, the EU is asking for a “backstop to a backstop” specific to Northern Ireland that will not be time-limited.

Endgame

The negotiations for the withdrawal of the UK from the EU are reaching their final stages and it is difficult to see how a solution to the Irish border conundrum can be found without some compromise. The solemn commitment that the UK has undertaken to protect the Good Friday Agreement and to keep the Irish land border open raises a significant dilemma. Either it has to opt for a much closer relationship with the EU than the one described in its red lines or it has to accept some differentiation for Northern Ireland.

(Nikos Skoutaris is Senior Lecturer in European Union Law, School of Law, University of East Anglia)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-backstop-refresh-why-the-uk-and-eu-cant-agree-on-northern-ireland-105080">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

By Nikos Skoutaris British Prime Minister Theresa May has insisted that the result of the Brexit referendum “was a vote to take control of our borders”. In order to do that, the UK will be leaving both the EU single market and the customs union.

By Nikos Skoutaris British Prime Minister Theresa May has insisted that the result of the Brexit referendum “was a vote to take control of our borders”. In order to do that, the UK will be leaving both the EU single market and the customs union. At the same time, May’s government has committed to protecting the Good Friday Agreement by not accepting any physical infrastructure at the Irish land border. So, the UK and the EU have been facing an almost unsolvable riddle. How can they keep open a land border between an EU member state and a country that is outside the single market and the customs union? The text of the political agreement reached between the UK and EU in December 2017 included a formula to square the circle. It stated that the aim of future negotiations would be to address the challenge of the Irish border through the overall EU-UK relationship. If the final withdrawal agreement doesn’t provide a frictionless invisible border, then “specific solutions” will apply to Northern Ireland. But if the UK and the EU cannot agree on those specific solutions, then Northern Ireland or the UK as a whole will remain aligned to the single market and the customs union. Since then, the UK and EU negotiators have struggled to find a legally operative text that would both fulfil the commitment to keep the land border open and respect the political sensitivities of all the interested parties. Below are the proposals on the table. The EU backstop The first attempt to legally codify the December 2017 commitment came in the Draft Withdrawal Treaty published by the European Union in February 2018. This proposed setting up a common regulatory area comprising the European Union and Northern Ireland. The region would, therefore, remain in the EU customs territory. May vehemently rejected the plan noting that “no UK prime minister could agree to it”. The main problem with the suggested arrangement is that it will create a customs border in the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. This is why EU negotiator Michel Barnier tried to de-dramatise the proposed solution by insisting that the whole arrangement creates neither a land nor a sea border. It is merely “a set of technical checks and controls”. Arlene Foster, leader of Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party, insists that “the entirety of the UK should be leaving the single market and the customs union”. She has threatened to withdraw the parliamentary support on which May’s government relies if Northern Ireland is treated differently to the UK after Brexit. The UK backstop In June 2017, the UK government published its own counter-proposal for a backstop arrangement. The biggest difference between the two proposals is that the UK’s applies to the whole country and not just to Northern Ireland. The entire territory of the UK and the Channel Islands would remain part of the customs territory of the European Union, even after the end of the transition period in December 2020. However, it is not entirely clear whether under this solution there would also be regulatory alignment between the UK and the EU, keeping the UK effectively within a significant part of the single market. Be that as it may, such an arrangement respects the DUP’s red lines but angers Eurosceptic MPs who do not welcome the prospect of the UK being aligned with EU rules in the long term. This group could vote against such a deal when it reaches parliament. A backstop to a backstop More problematic, from an EU point of view, is that May insists that the backstop should be a “temporary solution” because the UK does not want to be “stuck permanently in single customs territory, unable to do meaningful trade deals”. Given that the UK insists on legally entrenching the deadline of the backstop option, the EU is asking for a “backstop to a backstop” specific to Northern Ireland that will not be time-limited. Endgame The negotiations for the withdrawal of the UK from the EU are reaching their final stages and it is difficult to see how a solution to the Irish border conundrum can be found without some compromise. The solemn commitment that the UK has undertaken to protect the Good Friday Agreement and to keep the Irish land border open raises a significant dilemma. Either it has to opt for a much closer relationship with the EU than the one described in its red lines or it has to accept some differentiation for Northern Ireland. (Nikos Skoutaris is Senior Lecturer in European Union Law, School of Law, University of East Anglia) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

UK and EU face an almost unsolvable riddle

Top EU officials were warned Wednesday to make plans to cope with the fallout from a "no-deal" Brexit as their chief negotiator said talks with Britain must make more progress before next week's crunch summit.

EU Brexit pointman Michel Barnier and Martin Selmayr, the powerful head of the EU Commission's bureaucracy, briefed commissioners on progress just a week before the October 18 meeting that has been dubbed a "moment of truth."

According to spokesman Margaritis Schinas, Barnier "recalled that decisive progress must be made in time for the October European Council next week and negotiations at technical level will continue this week."

Selmayr meanwhile "provided a brief update on the state of play of the Commission preparedness work and recalled the importance for all stakeholders to prepare for all outcomes and at all levels."

Selmayr, secretary general of the European Commission, has been tasked with coordinating preparedness to protect the EU from economic and political damage if Britain leaves the bloc on March 29 next year without a divorce deal in place.

Barnier is attempting to negotiate such a deal, but time is running out and EU leaders have made it clear that they expect Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May to come up with a way to unblock talks before next week.

Dimitris Avramopoulos, the EU commissioner for migration and home affairs, said Barnier had briefed the body on the state of play in the negotiations.

"Michel Barnier and his team are working day and night to reach a deal, but we are not there yet," he said. He referred further questions to Barnier, who was due to make a speech to European business leaders later in the day. &nbsp;

Top EU officials were warned Wednesday to make plans to cope with the fallout from a "no-deal" Brexit as their chief negotiator said talks with Britain must make more progress before next week's crunch summit.

Top EU officials were warned Wednesday to make plans to cope with the fallout from a "no-deal" Brexit as their chief negotiator said talks with Britain must make more progress before next week's crunch summit. EU Brexit pointman Michel Barnier and Martin Selmayr, the powerful head of the EU Commission's bureaucracy, briefed commissioners on progress just a week before the October 18 meeting that has been dubbed a "moment of truth." According to spokesman Margaritis Schinas, Barnier "recalled that decisive progress must be made in time for the October European Council next week and negotiations at technical level will continue this week." Selmayr meanwhile "provided a brief update on the state of play of the Commission preparedness work and recalled the importance for all stakeholders to prepare for all outcomes and at all levels." Selmayr, secretary general of the European Commission, has been tasked with coordinating preparedness to protect the EU from economic and political damage if Britain leaves the bloc on March 29 next year without a divorce deal in place. Barnier is attempting to negotiate such a deal, but time is running out and EU leaders have made it clear that they expect Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May to come up with a way to unblock talks before next week. Dimitris Avramopoulos, the EU commissioner for migration and home affairs, said Barnier had briefed the body on the state of play in the negotiations. "Michel Barnier and his team are working day and night to reach a deal, but we are not there yet," he said. He referred further questions to Barnier, who was due to make a speech to European business leaders later in the day.

EU officials warned to prepare for no-deal Brexit

no-deal-brexit-0

No Deal Brexit, News on No Deal Brexit, stories on No Deal Brexit, articles on No Deal Brexit, No Deal Brexit stories at Wion, No Deal Brexit news, No Deal Brexit latest news

no deal-brexit-0

Stepping into power, Britain's Johnson seeks more diverse cabinet

Race to succeed UK Prime Minister May centres on 'no deal' Brexit battle

EU leaders meet to decide another Brexit delay

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

May's legal changes do not rule out indefinite backstop: UK Attorney General

Concerns of possible Brexit delay growing among British public

Brexit: Could the EU really be convinced to budge on the backstop?

UK trade minister says EU 'irresponsible' to refuse to reopen Brexit deal

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

How Europe reacted to Brexit deal defeat

Japanese PM voices hope Britain can avoid no-deal Brexit

Ireland to ramp up preparations for 'no deal' Brexit: Minister

UK and EU face an almost unsolvable riddle

UK and EU face an almost unsolvable riddle

EU officials warned to prepare for no-deal Brexit