The UK government he confirmed which does not intend to comply with some clauses of the agreement made on Brexit with the European Union, the so-called Withdrawal Agreement, approved in early January by the British Parliament and therefore become law.
The decision was confirmed by Prime Minister Boris Johnson afterwards days of indiscretions, and has attracted a lot of criticism: both for the way in which it was communicated – the European Commission accused the United Kingdom of having betrayed the trust necessary to continue the negotiations currently underway, concerning the future trade agreement – and for the contents of the law, which could violate some rules of international law.
Laura Kuenssberg, head of the political editorial board of BBC News, he wrote that in recent days sources inside the British government had described the law as “a nuclear option”. “In the end they decided to push the button,” Kuenssberg writes.
The decision of the government led by Boris Johnson could have very concrete consequences already in the coming weeks. The European Commission has asked Johnson to withdraw the proposed law, suggesting that otherwise he will abandon ongoing negotiations on the future trade agreement. If the two sides find no compromise and on 1 January the UK completes the exit from the Union without any deal, the short-term consequences on the British economy – and to a lesser extent on the European countries that have greater trade links with the UK. United Kingdom – would be extremely negative.
Very concerned about announcements from the British government on its intentions to breach the Withdrawal Agreement. This would break international law and undermines trust. Pacta sunt servanda = the foundation of prosperous future relations.
– Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) September 9, 2020
“Agreements must be respected”, tweeted the president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, quoting a Latin motto
The problem with Withdrawal Agreement arises from the fact that the compromise found last autumn between European and British negotiators was possible because Johnson had given in on a number of aspects concerning the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. From the beginning of the negotiations the European Union had insisted not to build a new border between the two countries, which was only removed in 1997 with the Good Friday peace accords.
To achieve this, Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK) should have remained aligned with European laws on duties and the movement of goods and services. Theresa May’s government viewed this eventuality as an unacceptable violation of the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom; the Johnson government instead accepted the European requests, and defined “great” the compromise found.
Now, however, Johnson himself proposes that the British government may explicitly violate some clauses of the Withdrawal Agreement. For example, the agreement requires the United Kingdom to comply with European state aid laws regarding state subsidies to Northern Irish companies (to prevent them from competing unfairly with Irish companies); the law proposed by Johnson (PDF) in article 44 argues that the British government can choose whether or not to notify the European Union of the existence of certain subsidies, in fact going beyond the contents of the already approved Withdrawal Agreement. Paragraph 42 instead gives the government the power to ignore international laws when dealing with the transport of goods: a measure contrary to international law, given that British laws – like those of most Western countries – provide for the supremacy of international treaties. , if in force, with respect to national laws.
The British government has insisted that the changes to the Withdrawal Agreement, and the consequent violation of international treaties would be “very specific and limited”, and that the document still needed to be clarified because it was excessively ambiguous on some points (shortly after approving it, Johnson and the government spoke of it exclusively in enthusiastic terms).
???? Brandon Lewis confirms the Government will break international law on EU Withdrawal Deal:
“Yes, this does break international law in a very specific and limited way”. pic.twitter.com/6B8pU5M2cH
– Adam Black (@AdamJSchwarz) September 8, 2020
Some observers explain that Johnson’s decision is part of a precise strategy: “the government has precipitated a crisis to try to move the European Union,” writes analyst Mujtaba Rahman, who works for the Eurasia Group think tank.
Permanently exiting the European Union without a trade agreement would be disastrous for the British economy: overnight heavy duties would be imposed on British products that would significantly increase their final price, making them much less competitive. A car made in the UK, for example, it might cost an average of three thousand euros more. Given that the UK exports many of its goods to EU countries – we are talking about 46 percent of total exports – the consequences would be potentially catastrophic for entire sectors of the UK economy.
In addition, explicitly violating an international treaty would permanently damage the Johnson government’s image with UK allies around the world: Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s chief adviser, Joe Biden, told Guardian that the approval of the law would compromise relations between the United States and the United Kingdom, very close allies for decades.
For all these reasons, many argue that Johnson will do everything to find some kind of agreement with the European negotiators, with whom the distance remains very wide on different themes including the rights of European fishermen to access British waters, measures to prevent British companies from competing unfairly with European ones with the help of their government, and the resolution of disputes that may arise in the coming years.
Other observers believe, however, that the British government is simply preparing the ground to accustom its electorate to the idea that the United Kingdom will leave the Union without any kind of agreement, placing the blame on the claims of European negotiators. A recent article from the Financial Times speculates for example that the Johnson government could agree to leave the European Union without an agreement in order to better manage the recovery of the economy after the coronavirus pandemic, and have more freedom to guarantee subsidies and state aid to British companies and multinationals that will decide to invest in the UK.
–
