The EU/Brexit Blog

First of all I want to address the breakthrough piece of news this week that stated that Corbyn and the Labour Party would be willing to accept a deal that Theresa May negotiates with the EU if   the UK remains part of some customs union. Now whilst key Labour cabinet members attempted to trivialise the significance of this statement, for example Barry Gardiner on the ever wonderful Peston show, said the deal had been on the table for the last 18 months, the significance of this remark is undoubtedly clear - it is a lifeline for May. One of the clear issues for Theresa May has been getting the deal negotiated with the EU to pass through the Commons. With around 60 hardline Tory MPs prepared to #ChuckChequers it remains to be seen whether the Tory Party will comjure the required votes from Labour and the Lib Dems to secure the bill passing through the Commons. Let us do some very quick maths, a bill needs around 322 votes to pass through the Commons and lets say the Tory Party can

Okay, so I admit that today, this blog post is a bit more impromptu than normal and particularly fuelled with emotion despite my desire otherwise not to fill my blog posts with incessant opinions that stem from an emotional nature, but today signifies a one-off post of that nature. I read yesterday morning about Jeremy Corbyn coming out to say that if Labour members backed a second referendum at the Party Conference then he would be obliged to make it Party Policy - this particular news feed infuriated me especially - but I want to also discuss why this feeling has built up long-term as well. By now I'm sure most of my readership know of my standing on the political spectrum and, in particular, my position towards Brexit but I want you to ignore that fact as I will try to write without that ideology in mind. So whilst I recognise the seismic shift towards the left of the Labour Party, I want to criticise the position of the Labour Party, it's attitudes towards Brexit and ho

First of all, I want to make clear that these points that I make below are not criticisms of the PM but rather me stating the facts and whether her Chequers Plan will survive as a result. In the first instance, the famous Chequers Plan sets out a common rulebook for some goods and services subject to agreement with the EU, a joint jurisdiction area whereby UK courts could uphold EU/UK regulations whilst still being aware of precedent and expectations of the EU - i.e removing ECJ jurisdiction and bring back 'control' back onto the mainland. Finally, the Chequers Plan sets out a maximum facilitation agreement whereby the UK would collect tariffs on products headed to the EU and pay those tariffs directly to the EU whilst still applying its own tariffs post-Brexit. As of the 21st of September 2018, the Prime Minister has come under immense scrutiny from members of her own cabinet and party, First Ministers across the UK and in particular, the EU - Juncker, Barnier and Tu

We are back again with a new instalment based upon the European Research Group’s proposal on solving the issue surrounding the Irish Border. What is important to establish initially is that Brexiteers do not see the Irish Border as a problem that requires a solution - so sorry if I misled you in the title of the Blog. Their statement states the only action required along the border is ‘modifying existing arrangements’. There are many reasons why I believe that is far from feasible. Firstly, if anyone has read the Good Friday Agreement, they will know that regulatory alignment is mandatory when discussing the Irish Border and anything that deviates from that will likely cause the collapse of the socially and politically invaluable agreement. The modifications of existing agreements, as wishful as it sounds, is inconceivable with the proposals put forward just a few days prior. The idea that the UK can remove itself from a common rule book yet have frictionless trade is dream like

I want to start off by saying that at the beginning of the year, I was incredibly receptive to the idea of a People’s Vote due to my pure desperation to stop Brexit. Whilst at the time I believed it to be a legitimate scenario in which the (No) Deal would be fully presented and laid out to the public, I fail to see the Government legitimately considering that notion and see the potential ramifications and precedent set for the future as inconceivable. Firstly, I genuinely fail to believe that Government will be prepared to present the full negotiation and deal with the Public. The nation has been divided based upon their desire to Remain or Leave and I believe that a People’s Vote will only enhance and intensify the clash between the two ideologies in the future. When I open my Twitter newsfeed, I am bombarded with #FBPE retweets arguing, with much evidence, as to why leaving the EU would negatively impact the nation and I can only see the rivalry between the two divisions incre

Look, let’s not beat around the bush, Brexit has dominated newsfeeds across the nation for the last two years and for the most, all I hear is that many are bored of Brexit. Of course that isn’t the case for myself but nonetheless, it is important to see the impact of the pure domination of Brexit in the media on the UK economy. For most, I assume the distinction and connection between the instability of the Pound and the relation to the ongoing Brexit negotiations may have gone unnoticed, however, it has become clear to some that based upon positive statements from the EU or UK, the Pound strongly rises and vice versa. For example, when Michel Barnier announced on Monday that the EU strongly opposed the Chequers Plan, the Pound tumbled, as a result, to its worst position for four months, yet on Wednesday, the Pound climbed strongly due to a report stating progress on the Brexit deal. By no means are these the only examples of correlation between Brexit and the performance of th

From the introduction of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, the Delors Administration saw a new Europe built for the future in which close integration and regulation were to be key in uniting all European states. It was also the start of the first significant enlargement of the EU where three new states joined the EU and plans for Eastern European states to join were being initiated. Enlargement gave the EU and it’s commission more power and prestige as it began negotiating trade deals. This mass reform not only led to a more diverse European labour and services market but greater foreign investment as services could integrate more easily among member states. Even though each President of the European Commision since Delors has seemed slightly insignificant, they have all continued with this directive of enlarging the EU and increasing it’s power and Brexit threatens to undermine the very institution itself. The whole premise of Brexit is that Britain could be better off once they

I think for pretty much everyone here it’s clear that Theresa May is a significantly weakened individual and has been for the past year – especially since she called the GE2017 in which she lost her majority in the Commons. It’s not just that though, personally, I feel  somewhat  sorry for her as she has been left to rot by pretty much her entire party and Mrs May has lost significant support in what was a distinctly presidential General Election last year that has undoubtedly made her job at negotiating Brexit unquestionably more difficult. Let’s start with the General Election last year. May was advised to be largely indistinct during the election campaign, both because of her shyness and her huge and unprecedented popularity amongst the electorate, in order to retain the voters they had and increase the Conservative’s negotiating power in Brexit with the intention of a greater majority in the Commons. However, May and her advisers pretty much underwent the greatest and most

A few friends of mine questioned the reality of whether Britain would become a third world country under a No Deal Brexit scenario and I thought it was appropriate to clarify my thoughts for this idea. First of all, it is important to determine what a third world nation is and disassociate this term with poverty. Despite the Chancellor’s hallowing remarks on the economic impact of a No Deal Brexit, it should still be stated that the United Kingdom would remain a developed nation. A third world nation, in historic terms, is a nation that did not pick a side during the Cold War – for example, most African and Asian/Pacific nations. However, more recently, the definition of a third world nation has been altered, of course, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Therefore, the Borgen Project states that a third world nation has ‘an unstable and inconsistent economy…fewer natural resources…and a copious amount of debt’ that is constantly accruing. Unfortunately, the UK has

Dominic Raab has only been Brexit Secretary for a matter of weeks and despite that he has still been ridiculed for giving up almost all negotiating power to Theresa May. Despite this, Raab has been intent on providing a face of calmness and composure with the Brexit negotiations and with just two months to go before a deal can be made with the EU27 the government has been ramping up No Deal preparations. This was seen as DExEU produced a White Paper outlining initial and key guidance for businesses in the event of a No Deal scenario but the lack of detail and key omission of financial services have left many curious at to where the government’s priorities are. Despite the Government hiring an extra 25,000 staff since Article 50 was triggered and at least 16,000 of those directly working on Brexit it proves mindbogglingly numbing that it takes two years to produce around 15 documents of around three pages in length each. This White Paper has also proved controversial due to th