PM May's address to EU Leaders 13th December

The address that Prime Minister May should give to EU Leaders this evening (13^th December 2018) – but won't

“Colleagues. Thank you for giving me the time to address you about the continuing concerns in regard to the Withdrawal Agreement and in particular the so called “backstop”. As you know this proposal (the “backstop”) will not be ratified by the UK Parliament and I do not believe that this view will change. That is why a new arrangement is required if there is to be an agreement. It is clear to the UK that this new arrangement must consist of a legally binding protocol which takes precedence over the Withdrawal Agreement and which would provide the UK with the ability to give notice of the cessation of that part of the Agreement (say at the expiry of 3 months) and/or that it would cease to apply after a given date.

The UK government has been extremely patient in these negotiations. We have agreed a financial settlement. We have provided very generous safeguards for EU Citizens and have given security and defence guarantees. The EU has not detailed the future trading relationship nor has it indicated how long such trade related negotiations might take.

We are at a stage therefore where it is urgent that we provide certainty for people and business. Accordingly in the absence of a positive and binding response to our proposal for a legally binding protocol which takes precedence over the Withdrawal Agreement then the UK government will from 1^st January 2019 consider negotiations at an end. Therefore nothing will be agreed. Should you consider this difficult in terms of presentation then I would refer you to your own document relating to the EU Negotiating parameters. The tone and content of what is being said now and that in the document I refer to are similar.

The UK has conducted negotiations in good faith yet some of you and some Commission staff think it is normal to ridicule both myself and the UK’s position – it is not! Of particular concern is the matter of Northern Ireland and the border with the Republic. How is it that a senior member of the EU’s negotiating team think it appropriate to tweet “the price of Brexit is Northern Ireland”. Let me be direct. The “backstop” proposal would break the Belfast Agreement as it could presage the economic control of part of the United Kingdom by a foreign entity. Similarly the “backstop” proposal would allow for the partial political and judicial control of part of the United Kingdom also by a foreign entity. All of this without the necessary requirement in the Belfast Agreement for the consent of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.

(At this stage some EU Leaders might start to walk out – if so say – this is par for the course – you can give it but cannot take it – it says much more about you than it does us!).

Moreover it is not a breach of trust for the British people in a democratic vote to say they wish to leave the EU. You might ask yourself the question why the leave vote won. It is not necessary therefore to re-build trust as claimed by M. Barnier on numerous occasions because it has not been broken!

I shall now be directing UK officials, in the absence of a positive and binding response (or substantial progress towards) by 1^st January, to engage with EU officials to work on a Managed No Deal.

Since nothing will have been agreed the EU will be particularly concerned about the UK’s legal obligations in relation to payments. As I have said before the UK will honour its legal obligations. However if the circumstances arise whereby there is no deal then the EU should submit its claims for payment together with all the relevant documentation. These claims will then be subject to a forensic audit under the sponsorship of the UK government. The audit will then report to UK government and Parliament and will specifically refer to the legal basis for such claims and whether there has been sufficient information provided to justify them. The UK government and Parliament will then be requested to authorise payment.

In respect of security and defence co-operation we expect to continue with the existing arrangements. We will continue to provide timely alerts to EU Members on the strict understanding that this is reciprocated. The same level of reciprocation will be required in regard to Citizens and their rights. We expect both legal and actual reciprocity.

I am sorry to have to speak to you in this way but time is now of the essence and we need to recognise that there are differing views as to how the world operates and how we think it should. That is part of the joy of political life. I sincerely hope that this schism (no deal) does not arise but if it does we will continue to be close international friends.".

May’s Juvenile Tactics

It should come as no surprise that the PM is now saying that the deal she has negotiated is the only one available with the No Brexit as being the alternative if the House of Commons votes down the Withdrawal Agreement. She follows this up with the self serving “people want to get on with it” and “I can bring the country together”. This is complete nonsense and treats the electorate with contempt as it insults their intelligence!

The PM is trying to say that vote this through and Brexit will be done and dusted. Utter rubbish this is only the start of our continuing humiliation. Did it no take 7 years to negotiate a Canada - EU Free Trade Deal which at the last minute was nearly derailed by a Belgium Province. Think what negotiations would be like and how long it would take with France and its demands for fishing access, Spain seeking to control Gibralter and Ireland seeking to annex the North. So vote with the PM and all you get is more negotiating incompetence!

The Withdrawal Agreement must be voted down decisively as something which no self respecting independent sovereign country should stomach. If this means going to WTO terms then so be it. It will be painful but not as painful as decades of humiliation. The UK has the ability to adapt and adjust in business and we shall certainly be more nimble than sclerotic EU Bureaucracy.

We should try for a deal but one which respects our sovereignty. A couple of ideas which should be put to the EU (or at least made public); add to Withdrawal treaty:

1) The provisions of this Treaty shall cease to apply in every respect at the expiry of 12 months notice given, no earlier than 31^st December 2019, by either party (UK or EU) save in the case of specific exceptions, such exceptions being time limited to a maximum period of 12 months from the date on which cessation comes into force. Or

2) The provisions of this Treaty shall cease to have legal force on the payment of 50% of the amounts due and specified in the Withdrawal Agreement but in any event no earlier than 31^st December 2020.

The EU is unlikely to even wish to talk about this but I believe it sets the right tone for an independent Country. However to be straight with the people the PM should say (to use a Football analogy) we are not half way through the first half yet.

Prime Minister May – A Very Sad Case of Incompetence

Today the Prime Minister has been in Brussels to receive the approval of the EU 27 to the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration in relation to BREXIT. To support her campaign to get the approval of the UK Parliament she has sent a letter to the people of the UK. She claims the Agreements will honour the result of the referendum and particularly return control of our borders, money and laws. None of that is true! With regard to borders there are especial long term arrangements for EU Citizens which will for years be determined by the ECJ. In relation to money the PM is seeking both a Free Trade Agreement and a Customs Arrangement – it is patent nonsense to think that the EU will not demand payment for access to it’s markets (else it undermines it’s protectionist Customs Union and Single Market) and freedom of movement for Citizens. Thirdly the agreements do not establish the Supremacy of UK law – see especially the so called Ireland “backstop” provision which could see external Judicial oversight in perpetuity. So when this is set against the Prime Minister’s negotiating competence, remember December 2017 – she gives in over the backstop, she offers a financial settlement before obtaining a Trade Deal. This Prime Minister is not capable of delivering any deal other than what the EU says she can have. The Country can and must do better! What ever happened to “No deal is better than a bad deal”? As a first step to getting support how about having an independent forensic audit of the £39bn to determine what it actually and reasonably should be. After all isn't transparency important in this exercise. The claim that the country requires a deal to be done does not mean at any price – she seems to have conveniently forgotten that!

Let us examine the EU and it’s constituent parts. If it was not already appreciated the EU as at presently run is a German economic hegemony (see it’s fiscal surplus and how it skews European economic development). How is it that the EU allows France to run a large deficit while Italy is not? How is it that Ireland, Portugal and Spain had severe austerity imposed while Germany and France escaped much more easily. It is clear that Germany’s economic hegemony is good for them at the expense of southern Europe (look what happened to Greece).

When it comes to international security there are a lot of “NINOs” (NATO in name only). Of the 28 current members of the EU only the UK, Poland, Estonia and Greece pay 2% or more of their GDP on NATO defence. Not all EU Members are NATO Members but there is a considerable overlap. Some spend less than 1% of GDP – notably Spain and Belgium (NATO Handbook 2017).

So far as the Good Friday Agreement is concerned the EU is not a party and it has been a blatant show of political opportunism by the current Republic Government to pursue it. If the UK is not going to put in a border and neither is the Republic what ever happened to trust. Is it so difficult for the Republic to say categorically that it rejects direct or indirect support for terrorism and that it will continue to honestly and genuinely maintain and enhance security co-operation on the issue of the border. Or is it that this is just another negotiating lever? Which brings me on to the refusal of the EU to allow participation of the UK in security databases – (see Withdrawal Agreement). I think we are now beginning to see what sort of people we are dealing with. In that introverted, self centred and self regarding world of the EU only someone as arrogant as Michel Barnier could say today that it is necessary to (re)build trust with the UK as the democratic exercise of the referendum meant it was no longer there! (interview SKY News 25^th November).

All of this leads me to the regrettable conclusion that the EU is institutionally incapable of negotiating in good faith! It’s actions thus far have shown malice and malign intent covered in a cloak meaningless soft words.

It is important to try for a deal but not this one. A deal has to be on the basis that for citizens there has to be legal and actual reciprocity. A complete end in March 2019 to the jurisdiction of the ECJ and the supremacy of UK Law, it’s Parliament and it’s Supreme Court. That is how mature countries behave. Else we should walk away.

BREXIT – Hypocrisy, Delusion and Misinformation

Another day in the life of a Brexit Observer

The Prime Minister goes to the CBI (19^th November). The CBI says it wants certainty for business (don't we all like a quiet life!). The Director General, one Carolyn Fairbairn, says that immigration restrictions would be bad for business. Now is it not the case that the members of this organisation have for years failed to invest in their workforce such that immigration of skilled artisans, professionals as well as unskilled and/or seasonal workers in the millions have come to the UK. They also complain at the lack of increased productivity also over many years. However this has not prevented stratospheric growth of CEO’s salaries, increased profits and depressed wages. The stench of stinking fish is overwhelming.

The Prime Minister says the UK can have a Customs Territory with the EU and the ability to have Free Trade Agreements around the world. The Withdrawal Agreement (14^th November) at page 302 and the Protocol on Northern Ireland say that this (a Customs Territory) would be a framework for the future. Moreover the document also states that such customs arrangements would be built upon for the future. This means the application of EU rules and payments to the EU budget. Yet the referendum result meant leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union (clearly stated innumerable times in the pre-vote debates). Clearly the Prime Minister is as deluded as many think.

Jacob Rees-Mogg says that it only takes 6 seconds for a Customs Transit of Containers exiting or entering the UK for non EU destinations. What he does not tell you is that clearance takes place off site with the use of Customs Brokers. So it only takes 6 seconds to drive through the Dock Gates but a small number of minutes off site for documentation and electronic registration. This, of course, does not help non containerised goods.

UK Treasury forecasts on Brexit do not disclose the assumptions on which they are based. As such (any statistician will tell) they are both meaningless and worthless. Moreover they cannot be facts as often quoted as they have not occurred!

It’s pretty obvious to me that that all these people are living in a post truth world. I do not wish to do so!

May has only herself to blame for this Brexit mess

I could go into detail about the deficiencies of the draft Withdrawal Agreement but before going there it is apt to think about the style of government and particularly the operation of the Cabinet system, and how, in my view, has been corrupted over the years by hubristic politicians and arrogant elitist and unaccountable Civil Servants.

There was time BT (before Thatcher) when Cabinet meant a collegiate approach to governing. A string of fairly strong PMs – Thatcher, Major (not as strong as he would have liked), Blair, possibly Brown and then Cameron who thought this was the way things should be but remains deluded about his premiership being successful.

A few examples of disasters brought about by this way of governing – Poll Tax, Maastricht, Iraq War, the bombing of Libya and Syria and the EU Referendum and now the Withdrawal Agreement.

They confuse power with real leadership. Real leadership is so much more than taking decisions in the national interest (a self serving definition if ever there was one!). Real leadership does of course involve having competence in the decisions you take but it is much more than that: How you reach decisions - are you inclusive?- do you inspire trust and confidence - do you enthuse people in your way of dealing with issues. Our present PM does not have any of those attributes.

It is said that you should not attack Civil Servants because they cannot respond. However this form of governing is much beloved of the Sir Humphreys in the British Civil Service. Shorter lines of communication – quicker decision making – less nuisance in having to consult others. They therefore are complicit in this debacle. It has been reported that Esther McVey was shouted down by the Cabinet Secretary when she asked for a show of hands at the end of the discussion on the proposed Withdrawal Agreement. No Civil Servant pip squeak would have done that to me! 

Time to get some backbone in Parliament and Cabinet because the compounding weaknesses of deluded Leaders and devious Civil Servants will otherwise take this country to another disaster.

The Withdrawal Agreement (draft) is an abysmal document but no more than one should expect from economy and trade protectionists. It does not genuinely and honestly address the referendum result as it traps the UK in a Customs Union and the Single Market both of which were identified in the referendum debate as the inevitable result of leaving the EU. In all truth the country faces a stark choice sovereignty or humiliation. Time to stand up for the UK!

Remainiacs are a Danger to Britain

Below is the text of a letter sent to The Independent on 15th September 2018. Needless to say it was not published by the paper!

"Dear Sir, 
         Andrew Grice repeats again (May has outmanoeuvred the hard
Brexiteers at last - 15th September 2018) the falsehood that the
electorate was misled and duped in the 2016 referendum. Quite apart
from the astonishing arrogance (intellectual and otherwise) of that
assertion many will recall the very well publicised anti Brexit
statements of the then Prime Minister and Chancellor and all that stuff
from HMG that came through the letter box. Of course such a narrative
as given in the piece fits the Independent's view that there should be
a vote on the terms of any agreement. However to have another vote
would just ensure that this period of uncertainty instead of lasting a
couple of years could stretch into a decade or more! This is what I
hear - talking to people - get it done and honour genuinely the
referendum result. By the way I voted Remain."

I think it is about time for some straight talking and an end to being messed about.
1) The EU's international status in law is problematical (see House of Lords Report and detail in Lisbon Treaty. So the UK should not be feared of threats of legal action. Moreover the lack of trust is two way - see the likely theft of UK intellectual property in relation to Project Galileo and corridor talk in Brussels that the price of Brexit is Northern Ireland!
2) The Northern Ireland Border is a contrived problem and Vradaker will rue the day he shook up Pandora's Box. Many technological solutions exist but spineless Remainiacs refuse to see them. In any event the blind eye for small amounts of trade worked for decades after partition!
3) The Prime Minister must be the worst negotiator ever. The correct response to a possible extension of the Implementation period would be to say ok but no more money and the backstop has the same end date.
4) Keep on telling them (EU) that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed (These are the EU's words in their original negotiating position) and this includes security co-operation.
5) Business dislikes uncertainty but that is normal. However business adapts,adjusts and moves on. Britain should do the same. Ever since Maastricht the establishment has only talked behind closed doors about European federalism. However the majority of the British public have seen through this as a device which did not benefit them economically nor politically. Career politicians, corporatist businesses and actual or quasi bureaucrats (such as Pressure Groups, Lobbyists and so called Think Tanks). have been the beneficiaries - that is why they are screaming so much now with exaggerated and unknowable economic guesses.

A Brexit perspective

Over the past few months I have been trying to put into context this Brexit thing. To do so requires separating off the daily noise of the media and (in many instances their partiality e.g. Daily Telegraph vehemently anti EU compared with The Independent where almost any criticism of the EU is ignored or sidelined). This perspective is, I hope, more contextual in terms of history and accuracy. I think the first substantial rumblings of discontent came from within the Conservative Party on the Maastricht Treaty. It should be recalled that the then Prime Minister (John Major) had considerable difficulty in gaining approval of the treaty in both his own Cabinet, Party and Parliament. Objections centred around actual and implied moves towards integration - sometimes portrayed as the precursor to a Federal Europe e.g. Common Foreign Policy. This was in direct opposition to the basis on which the 1975 referendum was presented in that what was being offered was participation in a Common Market. The Treaty of Lisbon 2007 set the future framework for a "Deeper and Wider Union". So there was the expansion eastwards built on the creation of the Eurozone some 7 years earlier and clear movements towards further integration e.g. European Defence and Security. This was too much for many Tories (and a few on the Labour side) who claimed that they had been deceived by being told that they were joining a Commercial Club only to find that their country was to be absorbed into a super state. The wider geo-political implications of the eastward expansion and Russia's reaction are for another day and time. The other point of real significance is that because of the difficulties in the Tory Party real engagement with EU was absent except in relation to strictly economic matters (it is widely acknowledged that the Single Market was strongly supported by Conservatives). During the period of Labour Government there was strong support for eastward expansion but the then Prime Minister (Tony Blair) could not get his Chancellor (Gordon Brown) to join the Euro (Single Currency). From this it can be seen that the UK was never fully engaged - we seemed to be happy to remain semi-detached but the political mistake of not managing inward migration opened the door for the anti EU people to mount their campaign. Similarly the EU seemed to be saying they were going to integrate no matter what and those that did not wish to do so would remain on the periphery. Given this perspective I am surprised that the majority to Leave was not greater! 

Here are a couple of letters sent to The Independent trying to make the point. They were not published of course as they do not fit their narrative!

11th June 2018

"As Femi Oluwole must surely know answers to questions often
depend on how they are asked and the context. I am clear that the EU
question goes back to the Lisbon Treaty and how the then Major
government dealt with that. Over the years it has become increasingly
obvious that the Lisbon Treaty set the path towards European
integration via a federal arrangement. The bruising passage of approval
of the Lisbon Treaty through Parliament led to the UK not wishing to
engage fully (for fear of Tory backwoodsmen) in the EU and thereby
allowing the Federalists to work away at their project. We could have
been much more active in shaping Europe's future - that awkward old
Parliamentary Democracy on the western margin of the EU - but we did
not! We could have said inward migration is causing great political
problems and we are prepared to take unilateral action to address it -
but we did not! We could have said the continuing annual disappearance
of €500m from EU allocated funds is unacceptable and we will deduct our
share of that amount from our annual contributions - but we did not! We
could have said that the rapid removal of non-tariff barriers was
essential - but we did not! There is more, of course, but Brexit is
largely a problem of our own making. Now the UK and EU political
establishments are perceived both in the UK and in other EU countries
as having tried to surreptiously engineer federalism at the same time
as working people suffer more than a decade of continued austerity and
at best stagnant wages. Given the chance to fight back - why not? even
though I voted remain I understand the alienation that many felt and
feel. To deny the genuine and honest fulfillment of the referendum
result would be a disaster for our democracy and potentially dangerous.
It will take time and patient negotiation for the terms of our exit to
be settled but I am sure that will be well before a reformed EU would
be acceptable to the UK."

20th June 2018

"Following on from Darko Kapor's letter of 20th June regarding Brexit.
I feel it is about time we called the EU's bluff. Ever since the EU 
issued its first negotiating brief (which if you read it is nothing
less than an ultimatum) it has been clear that inflicting pain on the
UK was the objective not sensible negotiations. The UK has offerred a
€40bn financial settlement, unconditional security and defence support,
continued finance for joint UK/EU projects e.g. Galileo and yet Barnier
has the gall to say he does not wish to get into the blame and that
insufficient progress has been made. Of course he does not want to get
into the blame game, as he calls it, because an objective analysis
would show that the EU was and is the problem. Quite apart from the
contrived problem of the NI Border (it is worth recalling that the
Good Friday Agreement is mainly bi-lateral - UK and the Republic - the
EU is not a party to it). Grown up negotiations require reasonable co-
operation on both sides not continual puerile press releases and 
statements. This pains me greatly as a Remain voter but time is up -
nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and as I have said before
you feel so much better when you get up off your knees!"

EU Red Lines

         
         When is a red line not a red line. Apparently when it is a EU
principle. The EU's consistent line is that the UK's red lines make it
very difficult: leaving the Single Market; leaving the Customs Union
and ending the jurisdiction of the ECJ in the UK. Is it not the EU's
insistence on the indivisibility of the "four freedoms" - free movement
of people, goods, services and capital resulting in the Single Market,
Customs Union and the claimed supremacy of the ECJ the biggest red line
of all?
Pragmatism is more than just a word! The UK has just unilaterally
extended the rights of EU citizens to remain in the UK should they
arrive during the transition/implementation period. Evidence of the
EU's claimed pragmatism and political good faith would be shown by
rapid reciprocity for UK citizens going to the EU in that period.

Letter to Independent 1st March 2018

The Independent is Defeatist and probably elitist

I thought it would be useful to publicise this. First the full Editorial and my response. Needless to say the response was not published in the newspaper. So much for their claims of inclusivity!

Independent Editorial

5^th February 2018

The EU is in the driving seat, ditching Theresa May now will change little

Even by the debased standards of the contemporary Conservative Party, it is odd to see Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Jacob Rees-Mogg being touted as “the dream team”. They are not exactly a reflection of modern British society, for all their fine education. Leaving Mr Rees-Mogg aside – for blessed are the peacemakers – there are very good reasons why neither Mr Johnson nor Mr Gove currently occupy No 10, and it is worth reminding ourselves of some of them.

In the last major Tory leadership crisis, after the departure of David Cameron and the disastrous EU referendum, both men proved themselves demonstrably incapable, if not unworthy, of positions of leadership. In his last-minute act of betrayal of Mr Johnson, Mr Gove proved why both Mr Johnson and he himself were unsuited to the leadership.

Theresa May emerged as the last grown-up left in the room, there to clear up the mess all those silly boys had left behind. Untested in a full leadership contest, taken on trust, she was the least worst option available to them.

For all that has gone so badly wrong since, she still is. If she were not everyone’s second choice, she would not have survived as long as she has. She is there because she is there, it might be said. The Remainers fear the “dream team” as a nightmare for the economy, and rightly so. The Leavers are terrified that the likes of Amber Rudd or Philip Hammond will sabotage their dreams of a clean or hard Brexit. Like John Major before her, and in similar circumstances of deep division, Ms May survives because her many enemies cannot agree on a replacement.

That is not in fact such an unusual phenomenon in political history and most countries survive such periodic pantomimes. The challenges facing Britain, though, are of an unusual order, and the stakes high. It may well be that the only way they should be faced is through a fresh appeal to the country via a general election or a further referendum.

The country, like the Conservatives, will have to get used to “the new normal”. The Prime Minister will continue to be unpopular with voters and unloved by her own MPs. The divisions in her party will make the EU negotiations even more fractious. Policy will continue to be fudged. Rows and gaffes and huffy resignations and backbench revolts and treachery will be commonplace. In a way, none of this will matter that much because the context of all this British instability is European calm. The EU holds almost all of the cards and will make the decisions the British cannot.

The European Commission will before long be giving the British a Norway-style take-it-or-leave it deal. It would do so even if Jeremy Corbyn were in charge – because Mr Corbyn’s policy, though put in nicer terms, is virtually identical to the Government’s. All the wishful thinking about a customs union or a soft Irish border shared by both front benches will not survive the hard language required in a legally binding UK-EU treaty. There is no space for creative ambiguity in such documents. Cakes cannot be eaten in one treaty clause but also preserved and had in another.

The crunch will come later this year, when the Barnier-Davis talks enter their last phases – and it will not matter much who is in No 10, or which party, because Europe can dictate the terms for as long as any form of Brexit is the UK policy. What the EU decides will be the best deal on offer and the British will take it in the end. Outside of the Lib Dems, with just 12 MPs, no dream team is at present available to avert that near inevitability.

Want your views to be included in the The Independent Daily Edition letters page? Email us by tapping here letters@independent.co.uk. Please include your address

Subject: The Independent's defeatism knows no bounds
To: letters@independent.co.uk
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 11:24:22 +0000


Dear Sir, 
         Referring to your Editorial of 5th February I find myself
deeply saddened by the lack of backbone by your Editorial Team in the
past few months! When an opponent in negotiations behaves dis-
honourably as the EU has it is time to reciprocate! Just a few examples
of bad EU behaviour:
EU nationals coming to UK during transition/implementation period to
have the same rights as those arriving prior to March 2019 - this is
specifically covered in the December agreement and makes clear
different arrangements would apply. The status of Gibralter is covered
by the Treaty of Utrecht 1713 (as such it is not a EU matter) - it may
be disputed by Spain but after Catalonia do you really believe
Gibralterians would accept absorbtion by such a state. The Good Friday
agreement is bi-lateral between the Republic and the UK - again this is
not a EU matter. I could go on e.g differential financial provisions
for defence below NATO guidelines - see Germany and some of the Baltic
States yet who is leading in the Baltics (no prizes for saying the UK).
It is time to up the ante as they say and remind the overly
bureaucratic, arrogant and sclerotic EU that they are dealing with real
grown ups here.
Just one last point, I have written to you previously in a similar vein
and it would be nice to have a reasoned response backed by evidence
rather than bluster and if that is not possible please tell me what the
weather will be like in April 2030 as I would like a rain free holiday
in Britain then! 
-- 
Keith Mann

MACCLESFIELD