Today’s White Paper on “The United Kingdom’s exit from and new partnership with the European Union” fulfils a government commitment to provide Parliament with its considered opinion about how to manage the process of Brexit.
Quite aside from the timing issue – coming as it does a day after the second reading of the EU(NOW) Bill - the White Paper is important as its lays down something of a benchmark for the government that it cannot move away from too easily.
However, unlike the vast majority of such documents, this relates to a negotiation, with the EU, its 27 other member states and its own parliament.
Thus matters, because it means that the government is not in a position to deliver whatever it feels like saying, but instead can only offer its hope for that negotiation.
The upshot of this is that the White Paper makes minimal advances on Theresa May’s speech two weeks ago: it’s structured on the same 12 principles, it uses much of the same wording and – most importantly – it offers as few concrete positions as it is possible to imagine.
Beyond reaffirming the desire to stop free movement of people, and accepting that this means the other freedoms must also be halted, there is still no established plan or approach. Indeed, the majority of the White Paper should be read as a list of the points that the UK government believes need to be covered in Article 50 negotiations, rather than as what particular outcome on each individual point should be.
In short, the White Paper is a roadmap, rather than a set of directions. With the latter, you are heading somewhere in particular; while with the former, you’re just aware of what might be here and hereabouts.
Actually, the White Paper doesn’t even really do this. The most glaring omissions relate to the financial aspects: there is passing reference to the budget and liabilities, but nothing at all on how big these might be or how the government wishes to tackle them.
On the generous interpretation, Theresa May is trying to keep her options open as much as possible, rather than making promises she can’t keep in a negotiation in which the UK has only limited power to secure its aims.
However, even in this view one has to wonder whether ‘keeping options open’ is just cover for ‘we still don’t know what we want to achieve’. For the sake of all sides in the coming negotiations, we should hope that this isn’t the case, because there is nothing more difficult than trying to reach an agreement with someone who doesn’t know what they’re aiming for. The clock continues to countdown to March.
The post How to read the Brexit White Paper appeared first on Ideas on Europe.
EU heads of state or government meet for an informal summit in Malta on 3 February 2017. At the morning session, the 28 EU heads of state or government are focusing on migration issues, and at the afternoon session, the 27 leaders are preparing the upcoming 60th anniversary of the Rome Treaties.
To receive the Brussels Briefing in your inbox every morning, register for a free FT account here and then sign up here.
Brexit has “exploded a bomb” under the EU’s family finances, warned the UK’s former permanent representative Sir Ivan Rogers in parliament yesterday. How much Britain has to pay towards the damage will be a key part of the split.
Read moreI am very happy to welcome Prime Minister Al-Serraj in Brussels today on the eve of the Malta summit.
EU leaders will be discussing in Malta how the European Union and its Member States can better cooperate with Libya. We have a shared interest in and determination to reduce the number of irregular migrants risking their lives crossing the Central Mediterranean. This is not sustainable for Europe nor for Libya, as the smugglers let people drown and undermine the authority of the Libyan state for their own profit. Tomorrow I will put forward additional concrete and operational measures to strengthen our work, to more effectively tackle the smuggling and trafficking networks and help manage migratory flows more effectively.
Europe has proved it is able to close down irregular routes of migration, as we did on the Eastern Mediterranean route. We have discussed the example of our cooperation with Turkey and other countries in this part of the region. Now it is time to close down the route from Libya to Italy. I have spoken at length with the Italian Prime Minister Gentiloni about it yesterday and I can assure you that it is within our reach. What we need is the full determination to do that. We owe it first and foremost to those who suffer and risk their lives. But we also owe it to Italians and all Europeans.
Although it is only one issue of several in our strategic relationship, I am nevertheless glad for the opportunity to have discussed it with the Prime Minister today.
Let me say that the EU is fully behind the efforts of the Libyan people to find an inclusive political settlement, and the United Nations efforts to that end. I reiterated the EU's support for the Presidency Council and the Government of National Accord in implementing the Libyan Political Agreement. What is needed now is further outreach in a constructive manner to those in Libya who have not yet rallied around the new institutions.
The Libyans have shown determination in the fight against terrorism. However, the threat remains in Libya and in neighbouring countries, and sustained efforts will be needed to win this struggle outright so that terrorism is beaten and does not return.
The humanitarian and security situation in Libya has devastated the prospects of the civilian population and their hopes of a normal life. The EU will continue to provide assistance to the Libyan people. We urge all Libyans to put aside their differences so that we can engage further and enhance our relationship. As neighbours, we share many common interests, including stability and prosperity on both sides of the Mediterranean.
Let me finally turn to another crisis high on the European Union's radar screen; the situation in eastern Ukraine, where we again are witnessing a sharp increase in violence. The ceasefire violations that have taken place over the last few days have demonstrated a new level of intensity and brutality. The humanitarian situation in the Avdiivka region is getting critical. We are reminded again of the continued challenge posed by Russia's aggression in eastern Ukraine as well as the threat to the implementation of the Minsk agreement. The fighting must stop immediately. The ceasefire must be honoured. Russia should use its influence to disengage the Russian-backed separatists. Weapons need to be withdrawn and the OSCE given unhindered access. Thank you.
Click here to view the embedded video.
Eppur si muove. A scant 7 months after the referendum, last night Parliament passed the second reading of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill* by a clear 498 votes to 114. Job done, Parliament no obstacle, what could go wrong?
As usual – in accordance with Usherwood’s law - plenty can go wrong, no matter who one is.
To be clear, the first and second readings are on the principle of a piece of legislation, not its detail. While there might be broad consensus on that principle, there is much less doubt about the operationalisation of it. From the government’s perspective, it will be the committee stage, where amendments are considered, that will be much more consequential and challenging. Seen in that light, the size of last night’s rebellion will be cause for much concern.
Despite a three-line whip, Labour still had almost 50 rebels, including several members of the frontbench and whips (who are supposed to be keeping order in the party). If there is this much indiscipline on the principle of withdrawal, then that indicates a strength of feeling about the issue that might translate into determined amending next week.
Of course, Labour is powerless, unless and and until it works with the other opposition parties in the Commons, as well as Tory rebels. The past two days have not given a clear indication of how many of these latter exist, nor of how far they are prepared to go against Theresa May. Essentially, their power will depend on their ability to find common cause – logically articulated through language of Parliamentary sovereignty – and to use May’s fundamental desire to pursue Brexit to secure their objectives.
At the moment though, the government doesn’t appear to be in the mood to make any concessions at all. As Mark D’Arcy notes, even when amendments might strengthen its hand, the government has resisted them. Everything looks like the thin end of a wedge these days, especially as the full scope of Article 50 negotiations starts to unfurl before a government that still doesn’t have a plan, or the resources to handle the situation.
In short, yesterday doesn’t change much in the scheme of things.
The government is still groping around in the dark, while making bold sounds about how they’re not worried, sounds that convince less and less each time they are made.
The opposition is still in disarray: right now it is as likely that Corbyn suffers a mass revolt on the third reading as it is that amendments can be secured in the second. And there’s the Lords to deal with too.
The legal situation remains unclear: as several have pointed out, the Bill doesn’t actually make a decision about withdrawal, only gives the Prime Minister power to notify under Art.50(1), which means neither the advisory referendum (according to the Supreme Court) nor Parliament have actually made a binding decision. Legal challenges ahoy, if someone’s feeling picky (and surely someone will be). And that’s before we even get to the question of reversibility.
The unavoidable conclusion is that before we get to Article 50 notification – on 9 March, apparently – we will have a lot more fun and games, all of which will feed the sense that the UK is adrift in the Brexit sea, to be battered about in Article 50 negotiations and free trade talks. Time to batten down the hatches.
* Superb trolling BTW by the Bill’s draughtsman: EU (NOW), indeed.
The post We’re on our (Brexit) way! appeared first on Ideas on Europe.