Home » Brexit » The EU Refuses to Negotiate Further, so Why Would MP’s Vote for a Brexit Extension?

The EU Refuses to Negotiate Further, so Why Would MP’s Vote for a Brexit Extension?

Archives

by John Brian Shannon

The European Union Brexit negotiating team said many times in recent months that there’s nothing to negotiate in regards to Brexit and consider the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated by former UK Prime Minister Theresa May to be the ultimate Brexit agreement — although it didn’t pass in the UK Parliament and therefore isn’t a valid agreement.

In fact, saying Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement didn’t pass in the UK Parliament is a bit of an understatement as it failed badly each time she presented the bill in the House of Commons.

Here’s what The Guardian wrote about the former PM’s first attempt to get the bill through Parliament: “Theresa May has sustained the heaviest parliamentary defeat of any British prime minister in the democratic era after MPs rejected her Brexit deal by a resounding majority of 230.”Heather Stewart, writing in The Guardian

In the 2nd attempt to get the bill passed in the House of Commons, the BBC posted this summary on its website: “Theresa May’s EU withdrawal deal has been rejected by MPs by an overwhelming majority for a second time, with just 17 days to go to Brexit. MPs voted down the prime minister’s deal by a margin of 149.”BBC

And in the 3rd try, which was also defeated, the (by-then) hated withdrawal deal went down in flames with the EU’s vox.com writing, “The British Parliament has rejected the Brexit deal for a third time, intensifying the UK’s political chaos just two weeks before the country breaks up with the European Union. Members of Parliament (MPs) defeated the deal, 286 to 344 — a much closer margin than the previous two votes in March and January, but still short of a majority. It has dealt another deep blow to the already flailing authority of Prime Minister Theresa May.”Jen Kirby at vox.com

And that 58-vote loss was obtained only after Theresa May offered to resign if the bill passed Parliament.

So, the Withdrawal Bill is dead, dead, dead, and won’t be returning no matter how much the EU miss it. And it’s no wonder they miss it, for it was practically written by them, for them.

In short; A completely one-sided deal that never had a chance to pass.


It’s Clear That UK MP’s Wanted Brexit and Wanted a Deal. But What Deal?

UK House of Commons MP’s voted enthusiastically to follow the instructions of UK voters way back in February of 2017 though, voting 498 to 114 to pass the European Union Bill by a healthy margin of 384 votes to get Brexit negotiations underway.

But Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement just didn’t cut it.

Since then, there’s been a lot of chatter in the UK about gaining a new deal, one that might actually work for the UK instead of the European Union alone.

But as EU leaders have said many times, there’s nothing to negotiate. The now-defunct Withdrawal Agreement is the only deal they would’ve considered and they continue to maintain that position.

One wonders if they’re 100% serious about that position as the EU (and especially German car manufacturers) might see falling sales should trade between the UK and the EU revert to WTO terms, and I think that’s what Prime Minister Boris Johnson is banking-on to get them back to the negotiating table to obtain a workable and fair Brexit agreement — one that works for both sides.

Yet, if you know continental Europeans like I know continental Europeans you’d know they always bluff to the last second.

And the EU does have a track record of last-minute deals that were preceded by years of excruciating trade negotiations.

In the case of the Canada-EU trade agreement (CETA) it took the two countries 8-years of on-again, off-again negotiations to reach a deal — which the Canadian Parliament ratified within weeks, while not one EU27 country has ratified it. Indeed, the EU has chosen to ignore the parts of the CETA deal they don’t like which makes them guilty of ‘cherry-picking’ the (signed and ratified by Canada-only) CETA deal.

Is that the kind of compliance we can expect if the EU were to sign a political agreement with the UK? And is that the kind of compliance the UK can expect if the EU sign a free trade agreement with the UK?

If so, why waste a minute on it?


Boris Johnson Wants a Brexit Deal – But the EU Doesn’t

Who will win that round?

Easy; The EU.

But UK Parliamentarians can’t seem to wrap their heads around the fact that the EU… doesn’t want a deal.

And of course they’re right because the EU does want a deal — it wants the one-sided Withdrawal Agreement that was ‘negotiated’ during Theresa May’s time in office — and if that doesn’t work it wants the UK to give-up and stay in the EU. Which from their point of view is an even better deal.

If the EU can’t have either of those two choices, it doesn’t want any deal.

But within weeks of a No Deal Brexit, EU27 car manufacturers will have unsold cars piling-up outside their factories and will begin to pressure their governments for a trade deal (by that time a Brexit agreement won’t be needed as Brexit will have already occurred) and such a trade agreement could be in place by January 1, 2020 (about 115-days from now) and a cavalcade of sector-by-sector (or even segment-by-segment) trade deals would be signed and ratified by both countries in short order.

And, in the face of the thrice-failed Withdrawal Agreement, that might be the option the EU27 prefer. I know I prefer it!


So, Knowing All That: Whats the Point of a Brexit Extension?

The EU said many times that they’re not interested in negotiating any more. They wanted the original Withdrawal Agreement and they didn’t get it, so now they want to bluff until the very last minute in a game of brinkmanship hoping against hope that the UK Parliament or the British people will lose the plot and just give up on Brexit.

There is therefore, nothing to negotiate.

So why are some British MP’s trying to get an extension of the Brexit date?

  1. Because they think the EU is lying and will negotiate a new Brexit agreement?
  2. Because they hope to overthrow Brexit altogether by using endless delay tactics?
  3. Because they were at first, brave and wanted to fulfil the democratic will of Britons, but have since gotten ‘cold feet’?

If they think #1 is correct, I have to say they’re incredibly naive.

If they think #2 is correct, I have to say they’re wrong. More and more Britons (even former Remainers) just want Brexit done, allowing the economic uncertainty to go away.

If they think #3 is correct, I would have to agree. And that means the UK needs a strong and dynamic Prime Minister to help them stay on-course and facilitate a resurgence of confidence in Britain’s future to get them past the present moment.

And guess what? That’s exactly the kind of Prime Minister Boris Johnson is. Thankfully.


What Kind of Brexit Deal do I Favour?

I prefer a No Deal Brexit — but only because I’ve seen close-up how the EU doesn’t keep its end of the bargain in Canada (at least in the CETA context) and I see that only two of the EU27 countries have ever met their NATO spending commitments.

That’s why ‘deals’ with the EU don’t excite me too much as they seem to consider trade ‘deals’ as mere ‘guidance’ more than they consider them ‘regulations’ or ‘laws’ that must be ‘followed’ to the letter.

Calling the EU’s bluff by Brexiting on October 31, 2019 as Britons were promised by this government, followed by a flurry of international trade deals signed between Britain and her other trading partners should put the EU in its place and make it realize that it isn’t the centre of the universe (not even in the UK’s myopic worldview universe) and help to repair the mindset of those Britons for whom the EU seems to have an outsized importance — far beyond what is healthy and good for the United Kingdom.

Not that I wish one bad thing for the EU. I wish every single member country of the EU27 well. In fact, I wish them very well.

Eventually the UK will get around to signing a free trade deal with the EU. After America. After China. After the CPTPP countries. After The Commonwealth of Nations. You know, all the nations that don’t ‘cherry-pick’ their deals.

It’s just that this part of our relationship is over EU, and now, I just want to be ‘friends’.

Hey! We’ll do lunch!

♥Love you♥

Bye!


10 Comments

  1. […] Reposted at ArabianGazette.com […]

  2. Tim Walker says:

    Just finished reading an article regarding the US/China trade war. It mentioned one option-“decoupling” the US economy from China. Then shop for deals with other countries.

    Or to put it another way, diversify your trade away from those who insist on a one sided relationship.

    A second point is the USA may be considering other options around the time of the October deadline.

  3. Hi Tim,

    Manufacturing costs are indeed low in China, but they are also low in India, MERCOSUR countries and Indonesia. Even countries like Bangladesh and several African countries could ramp-up production of high-quality, mass production of low-tech items like athletic goods and outdoor goods, etc.

    Although China has benefited from the U.S.A.’s massive purchasing power, I blame the U.S. for the present state of affairs. Several U.S. presidents failed to address a growing trade imbalance with China.

    But as long as America wasn’t complaining, why should the Chinese alter their trade behaviours?

    We saw what happened between the U.S.A. and Japan from 1973-onward. And in that case too, there was no American oversight and no attempts to enforce a fair trading relationship between the two countries. (Again, the fault of U.S. presidents of the day) And the U.S. – Japan trade relationship is still unbalanced. For example: You need to be very single-minded if you want to purchase an American car or any U.S. product in Japan. (Similar in China)

    The two things that saved Japan’s trading relationship with America (options which aren’t open to China, unfortunately) is that Japan bought trillions of dollars worth of U.S. Treasury bills which helped float the American economy from the 1980’s until now. The other thing that mitigated Japan’s one-sided trade relationship with America is that Japanese car companies built manufacturing facilities in the United States in the 1980’s/90’s/00’s and hired hundreds of thousands of unemployed American workers.

    That’s why we hear only occasional static emanating from Washington against Japan, while China with a roughly similar trade imbalance with the U.S. is regularly lambasted by the White House and Western media.

    Both problems were allowed to develop unchallenged by previous U.S. administrations.

    Notwithstanding my comments above, I do agree your statement that America might do well to broaden-out its manufacturing to other low-labour-cost nations, and become not as dependent on Chinese manufacturing.

    And China might appreciate the respite, frankly. Their economy has been going flat-out for so long they probably need to slow down and breathe.

    As always, best regards! JBS

  4. […] Internal Link […]

  5. Tim Walker says:

    Legal status of CETA.

    If only Canada has ratified CETA, this is comparable to a contract with only one signature. Therefore the contract would not be in force. Therefore, the Canadian government would not be obligated to honor this contract.

    It appears that the EU is undermining the concept of a rules based international order. CETA seems to be a version of the old “bait and switch” trick, allowing the Europeans to cherry-pick at Canada’s expense.

  6. Hi Tim,

    I agree your points.

    However, sometimes two trading partners ‘are in it’ for very different reasons.

    In the EU’s case, they want access to the Canadian market, sure.

    But the entire Canadian market is just a little smaller than the California market (Canada population 37 million, California population 38 million with better disposable income) but what the EU wants is access to Canada’s resources — petroleum, minerals, metals — whether in crude oil or finished oil products, or in raw ore or ingot form, etc…

    …whereas Canada is only interested in selling to another very large economy (the U.S. is Canada’s largest trading partner which buys more of Canada’s exports than all other countries combined) and Canada doesn’t really ‘want’ anything from the EU.

    The EU has nothing that Canada can’t get domestically, or from the Americans.

    So, to diversify Canada’s economy away from such slavish devotion to the U.S. economy (although we love the Americans!) Canadian politicians decided to begin trade negotiations with the EU 8-years ago.

    That way, if there’s a slowdown in the U.S. economy, or if Canada elects a Prime Minister that irritates the American President, or for any other reason (such as U.S. protectionism) Canada would have a second very large economy to export to in the ‘good’ economic times, but such access would be even more important to Canada during the ‘bad’ economic times.

    I see on BBC World Service today that the EU is rethinking its plan to broaden-out its trading relationships today with South America/Africa, etc., saying that it might not be worth it for them.

    Yes. Exactly the point.

    If it benefits the EU they believe in global trade/globalism, but only if it benefits them in a one-sided trade relationship modality.

    I refer to this as ‘Win-Lose’ thinking (from the philosophical perspective) others call it ‘short-termism’ (from a psychological disease perspective) but whatever we choose to call it, I believe it was that kind of thinking that caused every war fought in the 20th-century.

    More advanced people employ ‘Win-Win’ thinking and reap the long-term benefits thereof, IMHO.

    As always, thanks for the great comments! JBS

  7. Tim Walker says:

    Eventually, based on patterns of behavior, one could create a list of countries and trade blocs that value Win/Win.

    And a list of those that prefer Win/Lose.

    For the Win/Win types the obvious partners are each other.

    BTW, John, would you mind if I quoted your CETA comments to City-data..com?

  8. Tim Walker says:

    Access to Canada’s natural resources….I believe the term is “resource colony”.

  9. Hi Tim,

    Thank you for asking!

    Yes, please, always feel free to quote lettertobritain.com posts or my comments at city-data.com and other forums.

    I certainly agree with you on creating a list of countries that favour ‘Win-Win’ outcomes, for IMHO, those are the only countries that have arrived in the 21st-century.

    As always, best regards, JBS

  10. Tim Walker says:

    Over on city-data I am being asked about CETA and EU cherry picking. John, as you are the expert, would you please post some details there?

Leave a Comment...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.