Politics

Aprovechar al máximo el acuerdo Brexit

Dec 16, 2017 Jean Pisani-Ferry

PARÍS – El 8 de diciembre, el Reino Unido y los 27 miembros de la Unión Europea acordaron sobre algunos aspectos clave del acuerdo de divorcio Brexit, abriendo el camino para la decisión, el 15 de diciembre, de abrir un nuevo capítulo en las negociaciones, centrado en abordar la futura relación de la UE y el Reino Unido y en acuerdos transicionales. Son buenas noticias, sobre todo porque evitan el peor escenario: un Brexit duro. Pero lo que hay por delante implica un reto mucho mayor.

Durante un tiempo daba la sensación de que Europa avanzaba hacia un Brexit duro como un sonámbulo. Ante la profunda división del gobernante Partido Conservador del Reino Unido y una UE aparentemente reacia a actuar de manera estratégica, la posibilidad de un peligroso escenario de no acuerdo parecía alta.

Sin embargo, al final, el Reino Unido hizo concesiones fundamentales que permitieron que las negociaciones avanzaran. Aceptó pagar mucho más a sus socios de la UE de lo que había anunciado inicialmente. Y se comprometió a evitar que se erigiera una frontera dura entre Irlanda del Norte (parte del Reino Unido) y la República de Irlanda (parte de la UE), aun cuando Irlanda del Norte retiene el pleno acceso al mercado británico.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 16 Comments on this article

manuel werner Dec 23, 2017

It seems to have escaped the notice of this article that the EU project was about managing the tribalism that fueled centuries of conflict, culminating in the wake up calls of two world wars. It is why punishing the narrow minded tribal leaders of the Brexit initiative (Johnson, Gove, Rees-Mogg, Farage, and on and on) who hoodwinked a small majority of the UK population to endorse their throwback vision, may very well be a good thing. Implying that "economics uber alles" is somehow what should be the central consideration is, at best, irresponsible and, at worst, displays a deep ignorance of human nature, unadapted to the modern world.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Dec 19, 2017

It appears to me that the most practical solution would be when the EU will allow some form of limitation on immigration to the UK.
( assuming that this is the only problem the UK has with the EU ).
But many EU countries will undoubtly also like some curtails. Therefore the EU commission will not easily allow that. Also this EU commission is very dogmatic. For any solution to the Brexit it is probably best to wait for the next commission, after April 2019.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
P. Kamath Dec 18, 2017

I don't know if If I am overextending my imagination when it comes to the business of Brexit! It looks to me as if Europeans are trying hard to punish the Brits for being a bad boy and exact a pint of blood!

I wonder if Europeans set their spirit of friendship and generosity aside and adore succumbing to an primal streak of political tribalism as they had been practising before two wars ! Pity Europeans should treat Brits as one of their own and so also the Brits! Then all will be well!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Dec 18, 2017

On December 15 EU leaders have agreed to move Brexit talks onto the next phase - marking an important step forward. Although it has averted the worst possible outcome - a hard Brexit - Jean Pisani-Ferry says "what lies ahead is much more challenging."
In recent months the talks reached a stalemate. Theresa May's party was deeply divided, prompting hardliners to call for a hard Brexit in response to the seemingly lack of compromise from Brussels. In the end the UK has bowed to EU demands on the Brexit divorce bill and agreed to pay a "fair" sum to settle financial commitments. The £50bn to Brussels are much more than the UK had initially announced, which may be "a bitter pill to swallow for those who campaigned for Brexit in the name of saving money for the UK’s National Health Service."
The UK has agreed to avoid a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, which "retains full access to the British market," and it will sort out the rights of UK and EU expat citizens "enshrined in UK law and enforced by British courts". Both Theresa May and her EU counterparts realise that they need to accommodate each other, because making life difficult for her would only encourage the Brexiters to have her replaced by a hardliner. No doubt a "hard Brexit would have cost both the UK and the EU far more, in terms of jobs and prosperity."
Apart from uncertainty which is bad for investments, a fraught relationship between the EU and the UK would have an impact on their international standing - losing "substantial global influence at a moment when an erratic US administration is seeking to tear down the existing international order and an assertive Chinese leadership is beginning to use that effort to its own advantage." Due to geography, the UK benefits more from trade with the EU than "relying on a crumbling multilateral trade system to ensure access to foreign markets."
As Britain is the first country to leave the EU following a referendum, whose outcome took many by surprise, the government has no "coherent vision for the future UK-EU relationship." May's cabinet "remains too divided to agree on a common Brexit agenda." The EU also lacks a "template for future partnership." With both parties steering through unchartered waters, "the future EU-UK relationship and transitional arrangements" can only be crystalised in the course of talks. It explains why the EU called for "further clarity" from the UK about the future relationship it wants.
Policy wonks believe Brussels will not be too soft on the UK, fearing "too favorable an agreement would create incentives for other countries to follow the UK’s lead." And they seek to figure out what sort of deals the parties can agree on - a Canada option or a Norway option etc. The author says "both are unsuited to the UK-EU partnership," because they don't address the particular problems that the UK faces. And he proposes a solution.
In a 2016 paper he and his colleagues urged the EU to see Brexit "as an opportunity to define a new model for partnership with countries that want strong economic and security links, without political integration." They said there was no appetite for enlargement, and the EU "should work to diversify its relationships with neighbors," like forming a “continental partnership” that would involve "deep economic integration based on a common regulatory framework, with the EU, the UK, and possibly others accepting the free movement of goods, services, and capital, but not of labor."
They also favoured "a permanent process of policy consultation that would..., give the British a voice – but no vote – in "economic legislation." The author complained about the lack of interest in Brussels, "with critics deriding the breach of the four freedoms." He argued that, a "degree of labor mobility" in an "integrated market for goods and services," does not mean that "all people must have the right to cross borders and look for a job in the country of their choice." He also says the EU should not "confuse a citizen’s right....with an economic necessity."
In fact the author's proposal is not a bad idea. Unfortunately federalists like Jean-Claude Juncker urge for a closer union, without "envisioning a longer-term arrangement" for the UK. Now they have to "think outside the box, and make an ambitious offer to Britain." It remains to be see what compromises can be reached between the two negotiating parties. The author says, should an outcome be undesirable, it would "not the end of the world." But the "status quo" is not an option either. In other words Emmanuel Macron is right - a reform is necessary.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
P. Kamath Dec 17, 2017

Thanks for your comment! You are right in your observation. There is no assurance that in most democracies in Asia ( reasonably developed, quasy or phony ones) , there is no focus unfortunately. Perhaps it is so in China which produced results : economic success! But at a terrible human cost.

I liked Orwell's quote. Read Martin Heidegger , supposedly greatest philosopher in 20tg century Western Philosophy. He was an ardent supporter of Nazism. He was a party member !
- Steve Hurst Dec 17, 2017
  
  Yes I particularly like the fact that in writing the unfinished 'Being and time' he ran out of time. A blessing for us all. I thought he was a bit of a babbling brook myself.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ariel Tejera Dec 17, 2017

The UK was quite enthusiastic on expanding the European union towards East Europe, in the 90s, and succeeded. Now it wants to bail out because of adverse labor mobility. Well... easier said than done.
- Steve Hurst Dec 17, 2017
  
  Ariel, you talk as though the UK is a cohesive whole. The political elite may have be pro EU expansion, 99.99% of the country were never asked. Notably with regard to free movement Germany set transition controls in place to moderate flow, whereas the UK did not. In particular it has been suggested flows were encouraged because the Labour government felt migrants would vote Labour and bolster their voting base. The UK governments, both Labour and Conservative, are complicit in this mess. Cameron who launched the referendum to placate rebels in his government never once mentioned the critical importance of financial sector revenues to the Treasury. Not once. That was because most of the country by that point disliked or even hated the financial sector. That was due to preceding Labour government getting too close to the financial sector. So you have government goof upon government goof. The latest layer is the behaviour of T May who ignored experienced advice from EU based aides who then resigned.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Dec 17, 2017

This article is full of nuiances. It is clear that the EU is in the driving seat regarding the Brexit negotiations but this is mainly due to the poor, autocratic and incompetent British leadership rather than anything else. If the French establishment and their "Advisers" had any common sense, they would have drawn a sustainable and reasonable road map to keep the British as close to the EU as possible mainly due to geographical, historical and cultural ties but there again the British establishment are and have done themselves no favours either in this regard. An utter mess.....the Trump way.....
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Dec 16, 2017

The UK is lucky to have retained Sterling. To escape the EU if using the Euro is now near impossible. Brexit will harm the UK and as consumer satisfaction falls so will the government. The EU however in the meantime will move towards more irregular antics with debt, if it cannot be done by the front door it will be done by the backdoor through levering the ESM, it is the main opportunity left for the likes of Junckers. The EU central objective is slouch forward with internment above all
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Christopher williams Dec 16, 2017

I can see the logic of this argument, particularly from the 27 side as a generality, but I am afraid I am less sure it has a chance of success.
From the outset, we should recognize the "Walloon factor" as displayed in the CETA final stages - and how this is going to cause difficulties on keeping the 27 together. The various areas of different impacts for ongoing EU members is far more complicated than with Canada; while it has been relatively easy to act in unison during the early stages, I find it very hard to expect that to continue to be the case.

Having said that, I feel the UK side is even more likely to collapse the talks at a later stage, on several grounds:

1/ The extraordinary breach of faith by Davis in avoiding the production of the assessments demanded by Parliament, on the basis that "they do not exist" is sufficient to show this government prepared to play any dirty trick to continue to act as if they have a mandate for any solution.
2/. They do not have a mandate to withdraw from the customs union, despite May's statement to this effect. She may have had some case for such a mandate, not as she claims from the initial vote for Article 50, which makes no mention of customs union, or from the referendum, which also makes no mention of it - but from a strong majority at the election she called to strengthen her hand. That, of course, was rejected, leaving her hanging by a thread - and the unreliable word of the Ulster unionists.
3/. Even despite the vote this week to give Parliament a right to approve or reject the eventual 'agreement' with the 27, it has little value if it is left to the last minute. Indeed, given the general bad faith, as above, it could be argued that such a scenario where a weak and expensive settlement is proposed, the only effective option would be to go for the ultimate hard Brexit, i.e. walk away from the deal altogether.
4/. Is it conceivable that the hard Brexit group have this as their master plan? You would think it was impossible to end up with such a harmful conclusion, but we do have some extraordinary people involved who seem to have control of the party. While many Tory MPs are reasonable and would hate such an event, they are cowed into submission by the threat of job loss at an early election if they stand in the way of the extremists.
So, where does the PM stand on all of this? Hard to tell, If she had the country's interest as her first priority, she would be reaching out to the opposition parties (including the national groups) to reach an agreed position across party lines. This could block the call for such an election - and may also bring about a good majority for at least a reasonable compromise deal with the EU.
But will she? I doubt it; she is too constrained by her hard liners - and her risk of making yet another massive blunder, like the call for an election she did not need.
So, I am afraid I see little hope of a compromise working from either side; we have the worst of all worlds by delaying the outcome for a further two to four years and then crashing out.
- Steve Hurst Dec 16, 2017
  
  Christopher, The stage is now set, whatever happens the chances are the UK is worse off, even if Brexit is cancelled which is unlikely. The EU is also worse off, if only by 15% of its budget and the Grand Hotel has fewer paying guests and the repair work needed is still outstanding. The 27 internal breakaway movement may gain momentum but actual breakaway is a different matter entirely so the matter is likely to become internecine further impeding any EU reform. In short the EU will become less manageable which is the fruit of its geophysical expansion ambitions which have no real economic basis. Given that Germany is favoured by the euro Italy France and Spain still have massive issues to deal with and vis a vis Germany will remain disadvanatged
  - P. Kamath Dec 16, 2017
    
    SH: " Brexit " Blunder of the century, you say! How about hubris of big leaguers of EU in the next three decades now that other global players from Asia play increasing roles?
    - Steve Hurst Dec 16, 2017
      
      P K, I dont know. The entire Brexit movement would have been stopped in its tracks if a temporary cap to free movement had been triggered which it could have been, a couple of years at a reasonable cap. But a group that clearly dont have principles - since they ignore the Treaty when it suits them - decided they must stick to the rulebook. I can only assume Asia will be more focused and more hungry. 'It is not these well-fed long-haired men that I fear, but the pale and the hungry-looking'. Julius Caesar... Perhaps Orwell is more appropriate 'There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them'.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/wcEUYC0es

Aprovechar al máximo el acuerdo Brexit

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

The Brexit Tragicomedy

Log in/Register

Aprovechar al máximo el acuerdo Brexit

Subscribe to PS Digital

Handpicked to read next

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification