While Brexit negotiations are still underway, the European Commission has clearly indicated November 2018 as the date by which an agreement must be reached in preparation for a final EU/UK divorce in March 2019.
The question has however recently shifted from what sort of agreement will be reached to whether an agreement will be reached at all. While it is generally understood that a no deal would constitute the worst case scenario for both sides, political tension is mounting, especially in the UK, against a watered-down version of the original demands following Theresa May’s stance that the original demands were ‘unworkable’ and the publication of the Chequers Agreement.
This Agreement has led to a political crisis and the resignation of David Davis the UK Brexit Secretary with its substance being defined by some as constituting the ‘biggest loss of sovereignty’ for the UK since 1973. These Pro Brexit proponents have in fact raised the question whether Theresa May’s Chequers Agreement may ultimately lead to relinquishing more power of influence on the content of UK national law than that that had been transferred upon joining the European Community in 1973.
But why have these divorce negotiations become so difficult? And what if anything may remove the gridlock that these negotiations seem to be in?
While it is evident that there are major interests on both sides with the UK intent on regaining its sovereignty as a promised outcome to a no vote in the now infamous referendum and the EU wanting to deter any other member state pondering on a Brexit-like exit, it is evident that it is in the interest of both sides to reach an agreement.
This does not however by itself amount to any guarantee of an agreement. The only solution, if the UK should ultimately proceed to leave the EU with an agreement is that of both sides being more flexible in their negotiating positions which appears problematic in a number of especially sensitive fields.
Obviously two other solutions are in fact possible, both of which do not seem especially palatable to the UK PM, and these are reversing the Article 50 TFEU mechanism (although not a process that is foreseen in the Treaty) or calling for a new referendum that will leave the decision of whether to accept a possible agreement in the hands of the UK electorate.
Michel Barnier has referred to a recent meeting held with Dominic Raad, the UK’s new UK Brexit Secretary as being positive, referring to the Chequers Agreement as a encouraging step forward and as containing positive guarantees on the protection of fundamental rights and the recognition of the European Court of Justice as the ultimate arbiter of EU law. This without discounting the importance of the continued effort required to actually reach a final agreement.
However, he pointed out that while many areas of convergence are evident in the vision of both sides there are still areas that require further work. To exemplify this he referred to the proposal for future trading relations, saying that this was in direct contrast to the founding principles of the EU and the integrity of the single market. Nonetheless, Barnier appears optimistic that an agreement can be reached by November and is positive on the willingness of the UK to that end, further indicating that the other 27 EU member states would now assess the Brexit mandate against the UK’s negotiating position.
Those most affected by the outcome of Brexit such as business will therefore for a while longer continue to be uncertain of where they stand and what action they need to take to pre-empt the Brexit impact. The UK PM has promised as a means to counter this uncertainty weekly information packs to inform the public on how they should prepare for a no agreement scenario.
However, the full impact of the conclusion of Brexit negotiations may be slightly dampened by means of the transitional period of 21 months that was negotiated and agreed to in December 2017 as a means to ease in the post Brexit rules. This period will run between the 29 March 2019 and the 31 December 2020, contemporarily with the conclusion of the EU’s current seven year budgetary period, thereby allowing those effected a ‘preparation’ period until the final introduction of the rules resulting from the final departure of the UK from the EU.
Dr Micallef Grimaud is the EU Affairs Advisory Partner, who heads the EU Affairs Unit at Diplomatique | Expert (Corporate ID Group) .
This article appeared first on The Malta Business Weekly on September 13th 2018
