TonTaking responsibility should be the other side of taking back control.But the government’s responsibility recognizes that demand exceeds supply Documentation Published on the Northern Ireland Agreement on Wednesday. Accordingly, the agreement is (removed according to preference) Theresa May, Hilary Benn, or actually the responsibility of the 2019 Parliament. Anyone, in other words, except the negotiator-the prime minister and his chief negotiator David Frost.
However, shirking responsibility should not allow us to ignore the fact that the British government is legitimately worried about this approach. Agreement has come into effect.
This document, jointly issued by Brexit Minister Frost and Northern Ireland Minister Brandon Lewis, determines the real The problem it causes Not only in terms of trade, but also in terms of politics in the region. It points to the inherent problems in the way the European Union manages the border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as if it were a border between sovereign states.
Moreover, let us not forget that it is in the interests of the UK and the European Union (not to mention the Irish government and the two communities in Northern Ireland) to propose a sustainable and feasible agreement to eliminate some of these problems.
However, Britain undermined its position in the production of this document. First, the government denies that these issues are both foreseeable and predictable—especially in the official analysis that accompanies the Brexit agreement when it is submitted to parliament. Ministers cannot complain convincingly that they have been blinded to sign something they do not understand, nor can they complain that they have no choice in time.
It is also untrustworthy to think that the EU is unexpectedly pedantic in interpreting the agreement. Among all, Brexitists should be aware of the fact that the EU is not known for its flexibility.
The government did not simply identify the operational issues and technical adjustments that might make the existing agreement work, but tried to argue that the entire agreement needs to be renegotiated-and that the framework of the supervision agreement involving EU institutions needs to be dumped.
Boris Johnson’s dislike of part of the UK being subject to the jurisdiction of “foreign courts” should not surprise anyone. However, if the question is about compliance with EU laws, it should not be surprising that the EU insists that its courts have the final say on the meaning of these laws. The European Union, like the United Kingdom, takes its concept of a sovereign legal order seriously.
So, in the end, what is the intent behind the file? If you want to ensure acceptable results for both parties, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that it hinders rather than helps this pursuit.
Britain actually threatened to violate the international agreement it signed at the end of 2019, further confirming that it is an untrustworthy neighbor in the eyes of Europe. This is very important because the UK’s solution to the agreement problem is based on replacing prescriptions with trust.
Many in the EU would only think that when London finally abandons the agreement, the UK is trying to ensure that Europe takes responsibility. Some people will think that this is the intention of the British government all the time, which will aggravate the current tensions.
If we don’t want to be locked in for a few months Tense atmosphere, The edge of the cliff and the commercial decline in Northern Ireland, the two sides need to agree on a way forward to ensure that the currently drafted agreement works in its intended balanced manner.
Perhaps the first step is to have officials cancel their August holiday and agree to an evidence base to determine the true situation of East-West and North-South trade within the UK IrelandThe second is to enrich the UK’s proposal, that is, how the EU can obtain the required guarantees for its single market while ensuring the operation of the UK’s own internal market.
To shirk responsibility for the agreements negotiated and signed, blatantly ignore the legal order of the European Union, and threaten to tear up agreements that Johnson has barely signed. This may not be the best way to obtain concessions—especially because the concessions sought are mainly based on changes. Great mutual trust.
Yes, the EU can and should be more sensitive to the actual problems caused by the agreement. But this document hardly represents the best way for it to do so.
