UK's Art. 50 response to EU

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.

Case for Ireland's exit

The country most affected by Brexit, other than the United Kingdom, is likely to be Ireland*.  This is the only nation that shares an actual land border with the UK.  Additionally, the UK is Ireland’s largest export market in the current EU (The exports to Belgium are higher value but most of this is shipped on).

*In truth though, all of the remaining 27 countries will be affected by the UK’s Brexit since Britain is the second largest contributor to the EU budget and either EU spending must be cut or other countries must fill the gap with higher contributions. Or a combination, thereof.  Though how Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy would be persuaded to fund the EU largesse showered on countries like Poland, I cannot contemplate.

The land border between the UK and Ireland lies between Northern Ireland/Ulster and the Republic.  This was, prior to the 1997 Peace Agreement, a much troubled area, IRA terrorists often visiting death and mayhem on people in Ulster and then fleeing across the border to the Republic in the South.  These same terrorists are now part of the devolved government of Northern Ireland!

What happens to that border, post-Brexit? 

What I am about to suggest will upset some right-thinking people and maybe lead them to believe I propose rewarding terrorists but please stay with me.

I propose two connected actions. 

The Republic of Ireland to also exercise its rights under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and leave the EU and the Euro currency, timed to coincide with the final departure date of the UK.

On the date of this departure, the Republic of Ireland to once again become part of the United Kingdom and as a consequence re- join the Commonwealth.  And, as a simultaneous act, Ulster to become part of the devolved government of a united Ireland.  The powers of this united Ireland would be the same as those enjoyed by the devolved government of Scotland – principally responsibility for domestic issues – health, education, social care, policing, etc.  and the ability for limited local tax-raising powers.  Defence and Foreign Affairs as well as overall tax and financial policy to remain with the Westminster parliament.

Okay, so, at first glance this would seem to reward the murderous IRA and give them what they have so long fought for – a united Ireland.  However, this Ireland will be part of the United Kingdom and Ulster’s Protestant majority should be able to take comfort that their traditions will be respected and protected by the government of the United Kingdom.  Perhaps the devolved government can rotate the seat of government between Dublin and Belfast (just like the EU parliament rotates between Brussels and Strasbourg).

For Ireland this would represent an opportunity to protect tariff-free access to a significant export market.  They would also have the opportunity to become a part of the free trade agreement that will be established between the UK (it’s second largest export market) and the USA (Ireland’s largest export market) and the traditional goodwill, extended to the Irish by Americans can only enhance the chances of a good free trade agreement between the UK and USA.

Of course there would be adjustments needed to harmonise social laws and Ireland would need to ditch its policy of neutrality but on the former there is a narrowing gap, anyway.

Ireland is more closely aligned with the Anglo-Saxon approach to market economics than to the European model favoured especially by countries like France.  This would smooth any transition.

In terms of immigration, Ireland wouldn’t seem to be a threat as there has long been unfettered movement of people between the two countries – ever before the European Superstate was even thought of.  

Another thing that occurs to me is that given Ireland has received significant injections of EU provided funds, which have been invested in roads and other infrastructure projects, then this would negate the need for the EU to refund the UK with the surplus contributions it has made, over the years. 

Oh yes, I think, contrary to the fools who think the UK should pay a hefty divorce settlement (£ or €50-60 billion is mentioned), the UK should be compensated, on departure for the assets it has contributed to, which will remain after we leave.  It is ludicrous that when people talk about this ‘divorce’ they talk only of future commitments and turn 27 pairs of blind eyes to all of the assets that were built up, using UK funds, during the ‘marriage’.   

Consider though that this idea isn’t followed. 

There would surely need to be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.  You can’t have freedom of movement between the Republic and the rest of the EU and an open border.  Similarly a hard border would be required to ensure that trade is administered in accordance with the eventual trade agreement that is reached between the UK and EU. (Scottish Nationalists – do take note that were you to achieve independence and subsequently membership of the European Union, these requirements would also apply between Scotland and England)

From an Irish perspective, they would be sacrificing sovereignty but gain a long cherished dream of a united Ireland and also access to a strong economy and market.  Some would say that the Irish would be dominated by the English but consider too, that the loss of sovereignty needs to be seen in the light of exactly how much sovereignty the Irish really have in a German-dominated EU. 

Another thing that would need to be considered – and this might help assuage the fears of the constituent parts of the UK – is that a parliament for England’s would need to be established.  Right now the English, rightly, feel hard done by as Scotland’s, Wales’ and Northern Ireland’s parliaments/assemblies receive generous subsidies at the expense of the English taxpayers.  This is something that Scottish Nationalists conveniently ignore but if they do hope to achieve independence and to join the EU (bizarrely then relinquishing their newly won independence) then they will need to bridge a current £15 billion annual deficit which would be even higher when a post-independence Scotland also has to take on a share of the UK’s national debt – rough estimate £8 billion a year cost.

Please give it some thought and let me know what you think.