At first listen, the tone and words used by Donald
Tusk, European Council President, seem helpful and conciliatory but listen
again. The EU response to Britain’s
triggering of Article 50 is a poisoned chalice.
There are three main strands to this response.
Firstly, the EU seeks a ‘divorce settlement’. The figure that has been bandied about is
£50-60 Billion. The EU, which is the
shorthand phrase I shall use for Germany, says that they want this resolved
before moving on to any deal on the future relationship between the EU and a
freed Britain. In a ‘conciliatory’ frame
of mind, they say that they only want to see progress on this matter – so the general terms of reference based
on what the UK should pay – rather than an actual number.
This though is a trap.
‘Progress’ will not be made on
anything that the UK proposes which takes account of prior contributions, for
example.
In the past 40+ years, the UK has contributed a net £500
Billion plus to the EU. That is a net
number – money that has flowed from Britain out to the EU. That is money that has been ‘invested’ in
farm support payments to French, Italian and Greek farmers but also much investment
has been made into roads and buildings across the EU. These represent the ‘assets’ of the EU and
Britain’s contribution to these needs to be recognised. Since the talk is of a ‘divorce settlement’
think of these as the main home and second homes that the British spouse has
contributed to. In a divorce the value
of these would be considered. The EU
only wants to consider their own future expenditure and Britain’s contribution
to that. So, ascribing no value to the past
contributions.
So, in the eyes of the EU, the more than €24 Billion
that Britain invested in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(EBRD) is ignored. (Oh, and that is not part of my earlier quoted £500 Billion
number!). Neither is the €39 Billion
invested in the European Investment Bank (EIB).
Nor are the amounts invested in the EU offices that have spread around
the globe.
Second part of the response is the Spanish sop. Essentially, the EU is seeking to make a
condition of a deal, that Spain should have a say regarding Gibraltar. The same Gibraltar that voted 99% to 1% to
want to remain a British Overseas Territory, in a recent referendum. Spain has long coveted Gibraltar, which fell
under British rule back in 1713.
I think of this part of the response a ‘false flag’
Something to get us to focus on this and become highly irate so that eventually,
when the EU give in on this, it can be dressed-up as a major concession. Simply put, the EU, Spain and the UK know
that this isn’t even on the table. It is
though an irritant and one that the EU know will be seen as so.
The third part of the response is the most
critical. The EU seeks to control
Britain’s post-Brexit taxation and regulation policies. The EU is a typical bureaucratic entity. They look for uniformity so that no country
stands out and can attract investment or set policies that are appropriate for
itself.
Britain already has a pro-enterprise approach to
Corporate taxation and, if it can silence its internal socialist envy-peddlers,
will have a personal income tax policy that promotes individual rather than
State growth.
The EU know that Britain will continue down this
pathway. They are seeking, by the
dangerous third component to their response, to stifle this. Should they succeed, then parts of the Brexit
Referendum Project Fear will be fulfilled.
What kind of country, other than a client state, (which
is increasingly how we must see the relationship between Germany and the other
EU ‘nations’) cannot control its own levels of taxation and regulations? What would be the point of Brexit if we are
controlled by Brussels (Berlin on the Zenne)?
So! The
response from the UK Government needs to be as follows:
Dear President
Tusk,
We have heard of your
proposals regarding our invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
In order to
facilitate discussions, I advise, on behalf of the UK Government, that we will
not accept any discussions
about or inclusion of the status of Gibraltar in these discussions and most
specifically will not allow any talks of a bilateral nature between Spain and
the UK, to be a part of such discussions.
In a similar
vein, the UK Government will not allow the EU to have any say or competency over Britain’s taxation or regulatory
regimes once we exit the EU.
Finally, as a
gesture of goodwill, the UK will not pursue a refund of its share of
contributions made to the EU, during the course of its membership. Linked to this is an understanding that the
UK will make no further contributions to the EU, from the day that the UK’s membership
of the EU, actually ceases.
Yours sincerely
Theresa May
On behalf of the
UK Government
I have no doubt that such a letter would be found, by
the EU-favouring Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to be lacking in diplomatic
finesse. That is intentional. A very clear message needs to be sent. Very clear.
When Theresa May said ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ this wasn’t
rhetoric. She was speaking on behalf of
the UK. We do not expect to spend two
years discussing issues on which we simply will never concede. The EU need to understand that,
immediately. The gloves need to come
off. Diplomatic niceties are not what is
needed, plain talking and backbone are.
We would look for a partnership with the EU but a
partnership of equals. If that is what the EU wants then they should start seriously
negotiating and they should cease with their
delaying tactics which they know will not be conceded.
Oh and yes, regarding the thinly veiled threat
concerning security cooperation. The EU and
its apologists within the UK, need to understand that Britain doesn’t do
anything for free and the contribution to Europol and security matters, from
the UK is far superior to that from other member states. Theresa May was absolutely right to put this
on the table.
