Post-Brexit optimism

I think it is too early to be worried about the future of the European Union’s relationship with the United Kingdom. We are now at the beginning of the transition period. Its duration is not long, I agree, but I also see that both sides will try to reach some sort of agreement before the end of it, before end of December. The posturing we are witnessing today is part of the negotiating tactics. But both sides will be under serious pressure from the respective business communities. They do not want to rock the boat. The economic and trade ties are strong. They should remain strong. Besides that, we share the same geopolitical space and that should be an encouragement for cooperation. Even a fool can understand that.  

No Deal, soon in a street near you

31 October is not too far away. But it is far enough for us to be able to say what is going to happen to the UK’s Brexit. However, it should be clear, at this stage, that the No Deal is very likely. If, in the end, we get to that point, it is obvious that the relations between the EU and the UK will reach a very low point. It will take a lot of time to recover from such a fall. And that will also have an impact on other forms of cooperation between the two sides. It will certainly be, if it happens, a most defining moment in the history of modern Europe.

Brexit, May and Corbyn

Theresa May’s Brexit agreement is still the second-best option for both the UK and the EU. The Prime Minister knows it and I admire her persistence and political courage. Contrary to what many might say, this is not about stubbornness. It is about conviction and wisdom. 

The first-best option would have been a new referendum on the relationship with Europe. But that is now out of the equation, unless there is a political miracle.

The Labour Party’s leader carries a good deal of the responsibility for the missed opportunity of a people’s vote. He has not been clear. Some politicians believe they know how to swim in muddy waters. 

I guess historians will be much nicer to Theresa May than the current conservative media is.

As far as Jeremy Corbyn is concerned, he might become Prime Minister in the foreseeable future. That will be the lucky turn of the irony dice. Not surprising in an extremely confused political landscape.

Politics has a good lot of ironic turns these days.  

Brexit is in town

Brexit night, again, here in Brussels. Theresa May wants a short postponement of her country’s Brexit date. That is certainly something that would make sense, now that her government and the Labour Party are engaged in talks. EU leaders could wait for those talks to conclude, be it that in the end there is no agreement between the two sides. The position could stand as a recognition of the merit of such talks, an invitation for a national decision on a matter that is of crucial importance to the British nation.

That would be my position in today’s summit meeting. Such position would give the UK Prime Minister some political strength, at a time when she is very weak, it would show respect to her and it could be supported by the European public opinion.

Brexit's new cards

Some people are saying that PM Theresa May’s statement, made this evening, is more of the same. I disagree. It is not. Cabinet did not spend seven hours discussing the matter for nothing.

The Prime Minister´s words are very clear.

First, there is no way she will preside over a No Deal Brexit. That is a key message. She understands the immense negative impact of such an avenue and might have been able to convince enough people in her Cabinet that such an option cannot be seriously considered. She might be very stubborn, but she is no fool. And she is determined in her opposition to a No Deal. I appreciate that.

Second, she has finally accepted she needs to reach an agreement with the Labour Party. That is also an important step forward. And she seems ready to give it a try. I appreciate the move.

Third, the most plausible option could now be the approval of her Withdrawal Agreement (WA) followed by a confirmatory referendum. Or, just the taking of the WA to the voters. That would also be the best option. The second best would be the approval of the WA in Westminster coupled with the endorsement by Parliament of a revised Political Declaration that would point in the direction of a customs union.

Things could be moving fast in the next few days.

UK, the land of the confusion

The “will of the people” is no longer represented in the British Parliament. Both parties are deeply divided within their own ranks. The image of their leaders is not good at all. Both have lost great chunks of credibility. Both, not just Theresa May. But her case is even more significant because she is the Prime Minister of the land.

In normal circumstances, such dramatic situation would bring a call for fresh elections. That’s not the case this time. Everything is so confusing in British politics that even this very traditional move is not implemented. The “friends” of Theresa May are just positioning themselves to replace her, without going back to the voters.

However, nobody knows what will happen in the next days and weeks. We might have some clarity by the end of this week. It is indispensable.

EU Council on Brexit and China

The European Council meeting of yesterday and today was not an easy affair. But it went well. The Heads of State and Government have shown a deep commitment to the discussions. They could agree on a response to Theresa May’s request for a delay in the Brexit date – and this was a very delicate matter, that took many hours to be discussed – and on an approach towards China. In both cases, the twin concerns were to keep the EU united and, at the same time, to leave the door open for a balanced relationship.

The member States might have different views about important issues. However, no one wants to rock the boat. And all understand that by reaching a common understanding about their shared interests they can then have a clear - and stronger - position towards the outside world. Collectively, their interests are leveraged. 

Keeping the EU project together

For those who have not yet understood it – also for those who might have lost sight of it –, it seems important to remember that the safeguard of the European common project is a paramount goal and a topmost concern. Anything that might threaten the unity of the project – and its coherence – will be fought.

That’s the way leaders have been looking at the Brexit saga, a process that, notwithstanding the confusion that prevails in the British Parliament, should be completed as negotiated. And without any significant delay. The departure of the United Kingdom is regrettable, no doubt. But it has been the choice of the British people and that choice must be implemented without menacing the integrity of the EU.

There is no concession to be made when that integrity is at stake.

Brexit, stage two. Next, please!

Theresa May lost the vote again, for a second time. And I would add, we, the Europeans, have also been defeated. It is in our common interest, for the British side and our own, in the EU, to have a properly organised exit and a transition period that is as smooth as possible. Anything else, specially a no-deal situation, would be a major shock. It would have an extremely negative impact on both economies and would bring serious disruptions to a relationship that has many dimensions and is very deep.

I am sure that the message that will come out of tomorrow’s vote at Westminster will be very clear. No deal is not a solution, that will be the outcome of the vote. Brexit, yes, but with an agreement, that will certainly be the Parliamentarians decision.

It will become pressing clear in the next weeks that there is a possible deal on the table. That’s the one that failed to pass today and had already been voted against two months ago. My guess, as a possible way out, is that Theresa May and the Europeans leaders will massage the draft deal once more and add a few lines to an extra new document. Then, Theresa May will bring it back to Westminster for a third round of votes. And, to our surprise, the House will go for it. 

What I am suggesting is an adaptation of the rule of three, the famous belief that a trio of events is more humorous, satisfying, or effective than just two.

These are very new times, a unique moment in the European history, and we can expect the implausible. 

Brexit: the crazy week ahead

For many of us, Brexit is a baffling oddity. It is like leaving a huge compound to go and live next door in a minuscule studio flat. A flat that basically depends on the energy supplied by the big neighbour.

It is a mad project that could only be fuelled by self-centred, delusional politicos.

It was, since day one, such a bizarre idea that most British intellectuals couldn´t take it seriously. For that reason, they didn´t bother to campaign against it. They were so much convinced that people would vote the eccentricity down. They did not take into account the obsessed militancy of the Brexit nuts and other xenophobes.

It's all Theresa May's fault!

In the UK, key Conservative opinion makers are now in a campaign to place all the blame on Prime Minister Theresa May.

Uncertainty, even confusion, and growing resentment define the current British political climate. Like the proverbial meteorology of those Isles, the climate around Brexit is foggy and unpleasant.

And they are openly saying, it is May’s fault! They add then: it comes from her lack of true enthusiasm for the exit ideals. Those Conservatives – and they are quite influential in the mainstream right-wing media, not just in the tabloid sheets – want to divert people’s attention from the inescapable issue, meaning, that the UK needs to agree on an exit deal with the EU. And that inevitable deal is the one that has been on the table since November 2018.

They also want to present some crazies – Jacob Rees-Mogg, Boris Johnson, David Davis, Dominic Raab, Ian Duncan Smith, among others – as true patriots, people that can take over from Theresa May and move the UK to the centre of the world.

Really? Well, with their Victorian way of looking at Britain and Europe, they might be able to bring the country back to the XIX Century. And make it imperial again!

Brexit: time to approve the deal

Brexit, again! At this stage, I see no strong reason for the EU leaders to accept a short time extension of Article 50. The legal exit date is 29 March. An extension can only be granted if it is grounded on a well-defined reason. Seen from Brussels, the best reason would be to give time to the British institutions to approve the additional legislation that would regulate the different aspects of an orderly exit. That would basically mean the exit deal should be passed by the UK Parliament before 29 March. If that is not the case, the Brexit matter should be put to a new popular vote. And then the choice would be between the deal, as signed off by the Prime Minister, or no Brexit. The No Deal option is too catastrophic. It should not be in the ballot paper.

The scheduling of a new referendum – the popular vote mentioned above – would be the only reasonable justification for the EU heads to accept an extension.

However, I do not see much of a chance for a new people’s vote on Brexit. The political conditions are not there. The new approach by the Labour party in favour of a referendum comes too late to be of any value.

Thus, the realistic option is to fight for a yes vote in Westminster. That would approve the existing draft deal. With maybe one or two appended sentences, that would give the tough MPs within Theresa May’s party an excuse to change their opinion and vote for it. However, such approval must happen in the next two weeks. It’s late in the day, but still within a manageable time frame. Beyond that period, if there is no clarification, one can only expect a much higher level of confusion, including within the Conservative party. And a serious impact on the daily lives of many.  

Theresa May and Valentine's defeat

Today, Prime Minister Theresa May lost another Brexit vote in Parliament.

It was not a “meaningful vote”, as the British like to say when the motion is only symbolic. But it’s full of political meaning. Basically, it shows that the Prime Minister cannot count with the hardliners within her Conservative party.

Moreover, here in Brussels the vote is seen from two complementary angles: first, Theresa May is not in a very strong position to negotiate any kind of clarification or addition to the existing draft deal; second, she can only avoid a catastrophic no deal scenario if she negotiates with the Labour Party. Therefore, there will be increased pressure on her to do so. She might resist it, she might even find such option as difficult as swallowing the bitter pill, but in the end, she must think in patriotic terms, not just in a partisan manner.

But can she do it? That’s a big and very serious question mark.

Theresa May and her negative delaying tactics

As I listened this afternoon to Theresa May’s statement at Westminster – and to the following parliamentary debate – I could only conclude that the Prime Minister has no concrete alternative plan to the existing draft Brexit Deal.

Moreover, she is not credible when she sustains that “the talks are at a crucial state”. There are no real talks taking place. And there is no plan to that in the days to come.

The Prime Minister is just trying to gain time. Not that she expects a miracle to happen in the next couple of weeks. No. Her hope is that in the end the British Parliament will approve the Deal, with some cosmetics added to it, but basically the same document that she has agreed with the EU last November.

To believe in an approval because the MPs will have their backs against the wall is a very risky bet. Also, it’s distinctly unwise. In the end, it might bring all of us closer to a No Deal Brexit. Such possible outcome would have deeply negative consequences both to the UK and the EU. Only open fools, like David Davis, Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg, can believe that a No Deal situation is a good option for the UK.

It’s time to bring the Prime Minister back to earth and stop the delaying tactics.

As a footnote, it’s quite shocking to see that idiotic belief about the positives of a No Deal being militantly supported by some mainstream British media. For instance, by The Telegraph, the well-known right-wing daily newspaper. This media behaviour is clearly the result of a mixture of chauvinist madness with commercial opportunism – trying to sell newsprint paper to the retrograde Conservatives that constitute a good share of the British market. It’s abundantly irresponsible.

Let's be positive and wise

Today's world in Brussels should be "restrain". This is a time that requires moderation, tact, discretion, prudence, circumspection, you call it whatever you deem more appropriate. I prefer “restrain”.

And I would add to it that this is no time to irritate the side that might seem very confused. It’s actually the moment to be warm about the future, because the future can only be about cooperation and mutual interests.

Brexit: time to move on

Brexit is taking too much of EU leaders’ attention and energy. It’s time to sort it out, to have enough clarity about the direction to follow and then move on. There are many other issues that require top attention. Including an assessment of what remains to be achieved as the current leadership ends their mandates and a definition of what should be the goals for the next cycle. Being clear about those goals could allow for a more substantive campaign for the European elections of May this year. It would bring the debate to a higher level. The candidates must be questioned about their responses to the key challenges. Beyond, well beyond, Brexit. 

Brexit: decision time

Theresa May’s leadership style can be criticised for many reasons. But it’s difficult to challenge her level of resolve, her determination.

The Prime Minister believes she must deliver the outcome of the 2016 referendum on Europe. Also, that the exit needs to be based on a deal between the UK and the EU.

There was a time when she repeatedly said that “no deal was better than a bad deal”. On that, she has changed her mind. Since last summer she has become fully convinced that an accord is necessary. And not just for the transition, not just for the short term. It’s critical for a mutually profitable relationship between her country and its major economic and security partner, the EU.

She is also sure that the draft deal she has negotiated with the Europeans is the best possible arrangement. Therefore, she will keep pressing on. Theresa May wants her proposal approved.

This week we will find out if she wins or loses. The coming days are crucial for the continuation of her leadership. 

This is now the time to go beyond the crossroads. I, like all of us here in Brussels, would prefer to see her determination rewarded.

Westminster is making it impossible

At this stage, the best option for all of us in the European neighbourhood – UK and EU – would be to have the Withdrawal Agreement approved by the British parliament. That would be the most reasonable way forward, this late in the process. Both sides need a Brexit arrangement that would bring clarity and could ensure a good degree of continuity to a very close relationship.

Unfortunately, Westminster seems determined to vote down the deal. That will complicate further a political situation that is already very delicate. The UK population deserves better. And they are also tired of the discussions about the Brexit. But the politicians in Parliament are too divided. Moreover, many of them are just guided by personal reasons and by an idea of Britain that does not tally with the international affairs of today.  

Brexit, NATO and security cooperation

To assert that the deal proposed by Prime Minister Theresa May will put at risk the UK’s place in NATO and the country’s intelligence system is not more than fallacious propaganda. The UK will keep playing a crucial role within the Atlantic Alliance, after the Brexit, as it did in the past. There is no change here. And concerning the security arrangements, the type of cooperation that will be in place if the deal with the EU is approved will be the same as we have now between the UK and the rest of Europe. Even with the UK out of Europol. Security is a critical area for both sides. That has been said several times in the last two years or so. And there is no doubt about the future relation in this field.

A couple of days ago, two gentlemen came to the front door of the British public opinion to affirm and give credibility to such fraudulent assessment: Sir Richard Dearlove and Lord Guthrie. They also said that the UK dues are “ransom money”. Or, the PM has clearly explained that the money the UK must transfer to the EU at the end of the union relates to commitments taken in the recent past and other costs related to the pensions of former EU staff of British nationality. There is no punishment to explain such payment, no liberation money is required to exit the EU.

Sir Richard is a former MI6 – British external intelligence service – director-general. He was in charge during the Iraq false declaration by Tony Blair about “weapons of mass destruction” as well as when Dr David Kelly, the scientist whistle-blower that denied such allegation, was found dead, following an apparent suicide. A very mysterious suicide, for that matter. Lord Guthrie is also an old man now. He had been the boss of the British armed forces at the end of the 90s and at the very beginning of the 2000s. He seems to have lost contact with today’s reality.

Both were powerful men in their times. But now, if they are the true authors of the piece on “risks” associated with the proposed Brexit deal, a piece they both signed as being their position, they have become very partisan and taken their distances from the truth. I can only hope they were more impartial when still in office.