[ad_1]
If someone had organized a game of betting on Brexit in the European institutions now, he would certainly have collected little money for the hypothesis of an exit ordered by the United Kingdom of the European Union on the scheduled date of March 29th. Faced with the predictable advantage of the divorce solution Tuesday in Westminster, the information sheets on the Brussels side focus on the hypothesis of an extension of the deadline for the application of article 50 – and of consequence of the postponement of the "Brexit" date – so that the English have the time to organize a new vote. If this is a new election or a second referendum, it is not known: in this imaginary betting exchange, presumptions are assumed for each of these scenarios.
What is known is that until the outcome of the vote on the exit agreement in the House of Commons is known, the possibility of extending the negotiations on Brexit will continue to be called "purely academic" by European politicians. , who remain determined to defend the plan approved by the 27 and signed by the British Prime Minister, Theresa May.
This is the only possible plan, said the presidents of the European Commission and the European Council, Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk, respectively, recalling in May that "nobody is able to accept an inconsistent change or jeopardize the exit agreement ".
Puns
In a five-page letter to the British Conservative leader, the two European politicians played with the words to try to prove that the exit agreement already contains all the legal guarantees required by the United Kingdom to accept the controversial regime that will avoid the resettlement of the borders of the island. Ireland, known as "Backstop". "The agreement is at risk due to Parliament's concerns over commitments to block the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland," May recalled in a final aid application to Brussels.
Juncker and Tusk insisted that such a solution of last resort (ensuring compliance with the peace agreements and the integrity of the European single market) would only be initiated if the transition period was exhausted without London and Brussels accepting a new trade agreement and would only be in force, on a temporary basis and in the "strictly necessary period" until the two sides close a new ambitious new economic and political partnership as promised in the political declaration accompanying the agreement.
They noted that since this "clarification" was made in the final conclusions of the last European Council, "it has legal value in proportion to the Council's authority under the treaties to define the direction and priorities of the 39, European Union at the highest level ".
In other words, this clarification, requested by Theresa May to overcome the resistance of the British legislators, "solemnly commits the European Union" with the "Backstop", assured the two leaders, who once again assured that they did not want this mechanism to be activated and promised "to use every effort, in good faith, to quickly negotiate the agreements that will regulate future relations" between the two blocs.
Will it be the extension?
But after two years of negotiations, the extension of Article 50 could be the only way to save the United Kingdom and the European Union from a disordered and unrestricted "Brexit" that is not affected by both parties and that, according to everyone, would have a profoundly negative impact on the economy.
The pressure to resort to this expedient (which is foreseen in the treaty) will begin to increase as soon as the rejection of the exit contract and the prolongation of the political impasse at Westminster will be confirmed. The diplomatic source confirmed to the PUBLIC that the 27 Heads of State and Government, which should accept the extension in a unanimous decision in the Council, should not object if the United Kingdom makes the request. But it is not yet certain that this is the so-called "plan B" that Theresa May will have to present to the House of Commons until next Monday.
In any case, the last moves on the continental side are all in that direction. Last week, in a meeting with the European Parliament committee that accompanies the Brexit trial, the chief negotiator of the European Union, Michel Barnier, has already begun to discuss some of the practical implications of this hypothesis, the first of which has to do with dates: how long can the negotiation process be prolonged before the actual departure from the UK?
Article 50 is not explicit in this respect and theoretically the Member States may have access to an "indefinite" period, which would be the time for the United Kingdom to complete the procedures for its exit from the EU. However, such a solution would only prolong the current state of uncertainty and instability, so it does not matter to anyone.
A first extension in July for "technical discussions" was raised as a strong possibility by a European Commission source on Sunday. But it was not clear whether it would be an idea of the negotiating teams or any other way to put pressure on British parliamentarians on the eve of the exit vote.
The dilemma is that setting a new date for "Brexit" forces London and Brussels to find urgent solutions to tackle the recomposition of the European Parliament after the May elections and with financial transfers to the next EU budget. Under the terms of the exit agreement, on 31 March the United Kingdom would no longer be represented in the European institutions, despite continuing to participate in the single market and contributing to the budget until the end of the transition period (December 2020). .
If D is postponed, the country will be a member equal to the others when the Europeans go to the polls: will therefore have every right to elect the 73 MEPs whose seats have since been reassigned under the "Brexit" hired (27 are distributed by Member States and 46 are reserved for future enlargements).
How to solve this trick? A resolution of the European Parliament provides for the status quo, but for how long: a few months or the entire legislature? What is the political legitimacy of the future British deputies elected in these circumstances – or who will be the British politicians who will accept a campaign under these conditions?
Source link
