A storm is coming

In the fishing industry, we expect winter storms – they are part and parcel of the job, Is our government, however, aware of the looming storm of its own making?

The best news of 2017 was our Government’s success in moving the Brexit negotiations from phase one to phase two, although in reality we are only moving on to to phase one and a half, because the transition/implementation period was not on the original agenda and this is what will create the storm.

Storms expose weaknesses, and for the Government it will be its entire Brexit strategy, focussed on this supposed “deep and special relationship.” Just to remind ourselves, Mrs May first used this phrase in herLancaster House speech.”The United Kingdom would seek to secure a new, deep and special partnership with the European Union”.

But there has been nothing of any substance to give us any idea of the foundations upon which this new relationship/partnership is to be based. Is it,

  1. like the present  – in other words, almost as good a deal as if we were still a full EU member? or
  2. starting with a clean sheet of paper?

It is fair to say that, given all the hype over this phrase, that the electorate thinks it is going to be the first of these options whereas the truth is that it is more like the second. When the penny drops, there will be immense disappointment and indeed, anger.

So the storm clouds are building over continental Europe, ready to lash the British Isles. We can expect them to arrive around the end of this month – January 2018. At the eye of the storm is the harsh reality that the unity and solidarity of the 27 EU member States comes first. In order that this will not be compromised, the EU’s proposal for a 21 month transition period will see us totally subservient to our continental cousins. No wonder Barnier was delighted when the UK asked for a transitional period. It suits the EU very nicely.

The EU will spare no effort in its battle to save “Le project” which, it must be emphasized, is primarily a political not an economic project. We have been told that as far as access to the Single Market is concerned, there is to be no cherry picking by the UK, yet this is exactly what the EU itself is doing in areas such as defense and security.

The recommendations being issued by the EU institutions for the operation of this proposed 21 month transition are horrific. We will have no representation in the EU institutions, but will have to accept the full EU acquis during this period. We will be back under the Common Fisheries Policy for another 21 months and charged a hefty bill for these “privileges”. Furthermore, who can guarantee that a new trading arrangement will be signed and sealed by the end of the 21 months? The EU has indicated that it is willing to consider an extension to the transitional period in which case, we may never leave in reality, only in name.

It is easy to be cynical about this transitional period. After all, why did we vote to leave? Brexit is about control coming back to our elected representatives, not further subservience to the EU.

Some Westminster MP’s are beginning to grasp that we could end up wasting 21 months under these arrangements and on 1st. January 2021 we could be no further forward – in fact, we would be heavily weakened as these 21 months would give EU companies time to find alternative suppliers within the 27. Other MPs are hiding behind this phrase “deep and special relationship” – as if Brexit is nothing to do with them, The bottom line, however, is that responsibility rests with every MP. There is no mandate to give our country away again, even under the guise of a “transitional arrangement”. Thankfully the plans will be put to the vote, so we will know where each MP stands and how many of them are truly committed to honouring the Prime Minister’s pledge that “Brexit must mean Brexit”.

It’s hard to believe our government is putting us in such a vulnerable position

John Ashworth of Fishing for Leave, who has campaigned tirelessly to Save Britain’s Fish from the EU says; It’s hard to believe that our own Parliament is going to place us in such a vulnerable, dangerous position with a transition. He writes:-.

Ever since Michel Barnier was appointed to lead the Brexit negotiations for the EU he has been clear and precise. Unfortunately, neither the UK Government nor the mainstream media have taken the slightest notice in what he is saying.

In his press statement of 20th December 2017, Barnier laid out the procedure the EU wants the negotiations to follow as everyone moves on to so-called “Phase 2”:-

  • By October 2018 a withdrawal agreement and a new treaty to cover only the transitional period should be in place, in order for time to get these through the various bodies by the end of the Article 50 process on 29th March 2019 when the UK leaves regardless.
  • The Article 50 of TEU allows the negotiation of the withdrawal agreement, which must be completed on time or else there will be no agreement, whether including a transition period or not.
  • The new treaty to be agreed will come into force on 30th March 2019, and I suspect it will be the reverse of an Accession treaty, with transitional derogations.
  • This is where it gets a little complicated. At 23:01 of 29th March 2019 the UK will have left the EU and will have become a “third country”. Apart from Barnier’s talk of a treaty, no one has provided any other detail, so we have to make a guess as to what will happen next.
  • You can’t leave the EU, take up third country status, and then carry on as if nothing had happened until 1st January 2021.
  • So the new Treaty which will cover the withdrawal agreement will come in to force in tandem with the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. Together, these two pieces of legislation would, I suspect, enable us to carry on trading, as we do at present, although it will be only for a fixed period covered by a time-limited transitional derogation.
  • On 1st January 2021, the derogation will cease, and either a new EU/UK trade agreement treaty will be created, or added to the new treaty otherwise it is possible the UK will be in the same position as we are under Article 50 with the transition coming to an end and no future agreement in place.

The transition period means we will be no further forward than now but will have left the EU and in effect re-acceded to obeying all EU law under our own steam.

This means Parliament will have taken back control only to give total control of all the UK’s affairs from 30th March 2019 to 1st January  2021 back to the EU even though we have officially left.

Meanwhile, the UK government will bang on about a “deep and special relationship” and the wonderful trade deal we will get, yet at the same time, the European Commission and Parliament have both made it very clear that we will be treated like any other third country while at the same time we would be trapped as a vassal state.

It is hard to believe that our own Parliament is going to place us in such a vulnerable dangerous position.

What are the electorate going to say and do when they find the UK trapped in obedience to EU law, locked out the rest of the world as we have agreed to do so?

With the EU able to claim ‘continuity of rights established’ as the UK undid the clean slate of Article 50 by agreeing to continue obeying EU law after leaving? This is not what the British people voted leave for an anything but Brexit.

The government cannot even get their terminology correct. “Transitional” is the word the EEC/EU has used since our 1972 Accession Treaty, so why is the government using entirely different terminology by talking about an “implementation” period?

Both the Prime Minister and David Davis claim that the plan for a transitional (or implementation) period was first mentioned in the Lancaster House speech of 17th January 2017. Michel Barnier, however, claims it was first raised in the Florence speech and this appears correct.

Mrs May said in Florence; “As I said in my speech at Lancaster House a period of implementation would be in our mutual interest. That is why I am proposing that there should be such a period after the UK leaves the EU”

But what she said in the Lancaster speech was; “I do not mean that we will seek some form of unlimited transitional status, in which we find ourselves stuck forever in some kind of permanent political purgatory”

Here, Mrs  May uses ”transitional” the commonly used word of the EU since 1972 for such a situation, so why switch to “implementation” if there is not a difference of meaning?  No one seems to have offered us any real answer.

In the House of Lords Select Committee session of 13th December 2017 asked what the difference was between transition and implementation but was not given an answer – what is the government missing or trying to hide?

In the Florence speech, she continued; “we believe a phased process of implementation, in which both Britain and the EU institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements that will exist between us will be in our mutual self-interest.”

This all sounds very confusing, but I believe the key to Mrs May’s thinking remains the words in her Lancaster House speech: “I want us to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by the time the two-year Article 50 process has concluded

I take this to mean that she wanted an agreement concerning a long-term future arrangement concluded by Brexit day, which will be 29th March 2019. She did not mean that only a withdrawal agreement would be in place by that date, with a trade deal to be discussed during a transition.

She continued; “From that point onwards, we believe a phased process of implementation, in which both Britain and the EU institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements that will exist between us will be in our mutual self-interest”.

“For each issue, the time we need to phase-in the new arrangements may differ. Some might be introduced very quickly, some might take longer.”

Her original objectives seems to be the very opposite of the direction in which we are now heading. Caused by so much time being wasted as the government deluded itself that adopting all EU law onto the UK statute book alone would be enough rather than cracking on with new UK policy to allow the UK to be entirely independent at the end of Article 50.

Instead of applying for an extension to Article 50 of TEU the Government has chosen formally to leave the EU at 23.00 hours on 29th March 2019 but then hand over our governance back to the EU, with no representation, and accepting all the institutions of the EU.

This is a situation far worse than anything we suffered during our 44 years of membership and all for the hope of a trade deal which still may not be ready to be signed in time.

The worst feature of this proposal is that during those 21 months the EU has been clear that the UK would have to accept any new EU legislation that comes into force during those 21 months.

Commission 830 – Final ANNEX 1 to the Recommendation for a Council Decision

  1. Any transitional arrangements provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement should cover the whole of the Union Acquis…. the Union Acquis should apply to and in the United Kingdom as if it were a Member State. Any changes to the acquis should automatically apply to and in the United Kingdom during the transition period.

Donald Tusk – Phase 1 talks – 8th Dec. ‘17
“As you know the UK has asked for a transition of about 2 years while remaining part of the single market and customs union…during this period the UK will respect the whole of EU law including new law”.          

However, David Davis was very evasive when questioned about this during the select committee session of 25th October 2017:

Question 89 – Mr Djanogly: During that period, will the UK have to accept new EU laws made during that period?

Answer – Mr Davis: One of the practical points of this, which anybody who has dealt with the European Union knows—as you will have done, I guess—is that it takes two to five years from inception to outcome for laws to make it through the process. Anything that would have any impact during those two years we are talking about will already have been agreed with us in advance.  Anything that happens during it will be something for subsequent discussion as to whether we propose to follow it or not.  That is where the international arbitration procedure might become important.

Mr Davis thinks we will have some choice, However, M. Barnier, made it very clear in his speech of 20th December 2017 there will be no cherry picking; we will have to accept EVERYTHING during transition period, including legislation currently in the pipeline.

This is a rather complex and technical subject, but I hope I have been able to convey just how dangerous this “transitional period” is.  Our fishing industry would still be stuck with the disastrous Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) but worse, as the EU could move the goalposts to it’s own advantage to cripple what it left of Britain’s fishing fleet and coastal communities.

If the EU can clear the UK fleet from the seas it can then invoke Article 62.2 of UNCLOS which says;
Where the coastal State does not have the capacity to harvest the entire allowable catch, it shall ….give other States access to the surplus of the allowable catch.

If the government signs up to a transition it would not really be Brexit in anything other than name only as the UK would become a vassal state.

Short changing the British people over Brexit

It is becoming an increasing concern that the British people are being short-changed over Brexit  – by Mrs May, the Department for (not) Exiting the European Union (EU), the government generally, and Parliament. The final Brexit settlement with the EU should correspond in large part to addressing the significant wishes, hopes and fears of the electorate as expressed in the Referendum vote. Are there important pieces of pieces of information which we not being told that we really should know?  What will be the political consequences if and when we find out the hard way that our leaders are misleading and cheating us?

The vote to leave the EU was a cry for a change of direction. In particular, it was an expression of the desire to leave the EU, which is evolving into a centralised homogeneous superstate. It was certainly not for “politics as usual”  – the status quo whereby an out of touch ruling establishment in Westminster and Brussels would continue to conceal the truth, using fear to manipulate people and doing what it wanted to whilst ignoring the wishes of the Electorate.  Ultimately, the Brexit vote was about ‘the sovereignty of the People’ and their right to governed by consent – in other words, government of the people, by the people, for the people.  Brexit, therefore, needs to be a complete change of political direction, not leaving us stuck in the political EU (aka Greater Germany) under a different name, all the time aided and abetted by a deceptive Westminster clique.

If we had voted to remain in the EU, whatever the reasoning of individual voters, we would have been forced to accept not only the current status quo but also of the EU’s direction of travel.   Remain voters were effectively putting their trust in the ruling establishment in both Westminster and Brussels. Any Brexit settlement outside remain voters’ ‘comfort zone’ of EU membership therefore needs to provide something like the same measure of reassurance and must address, wherever practicable, their real concerns.

Whilst it would appear the objectives of Leave and Remain voters are completely different, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they cannot, or should not, be reconciled in the resulting Brexit settlement.  To ignore the minority who voted Remain is tantamount to  a dictatorship of the majority and very un-British.  It is also quite likely that the economic fears of Remain voters are also shared to some extent by Leave voters, whilst many Remain voters share the Leave voters’ disillusionment with, and distrust of, the ruling élite and share their concerns about uncontrolled immigration and open borders. Political independence from the EU whilst maintaining close trading arrangements (such as through the Single Market) and co-operation should be achievable if Mrs May and Mr Davis understood how the EU thinks and works, following the example set by other prosperous European nations which are not in the EU.

The political establishment and main stream media are not presenting us with anything like the full picture on leaving the EU. In turn, the resulting distortion is creating misconceptions about what can and cannot be achieved.  Firstly, if we re-join EFTA (the European Free Trade Association) we can remain in the Single Market (more accurately the European Economic Area, EEA) under different, much more flexible or bespoke conditions including allowing us to control immigration (by unilaterally invoking Article 112, the Safeguard Measures) in the EEA Agreement and leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.  Secondly, the acquis (or body of law) of the EEA is about a quarter of the total EU acquis and is relevant to the facilitation of seamless trade, rather than the furtherance of a political project.  Thirdly, about 80% of the EEA acquis originates outside the EU, to facilitate more global trade, so we would (probably) need to comply with it anyway.  Fourthly, ‘all singing, all dancing’ Free Trade agreements (FTAs) take several years to negotiate and don’t provide seamless trade.  Fifthly, the EU is unlikely to agree to an advantageous FTA because it is not in the interests of their centralising control-freak political agenda. Sixthly, outside the EEA we will be a ‘third country’ subject to vastly increased difficulties while trading with the protectionist EU through tariffs and non-tariff barriers including regulation, approvals and surveillance.

Mrs May and Mr Davis’s Transitional Deal and overall handling of Brexit so far has the potential to lead to widespread dissatisfaction and disillusionment on both the Leave and Remain sides.  For the leaver, there is dissatisfaction that Brexit under the current plan will not be a clean break on 29th March 2019, but will begin a period of costly servitude to the EU, effectively a vassal state, which will last for at least 21 months and quite possibly even longer. In other words, it will be an indefinite Brexit in name only. For the concerned remainer who is not an ideological europhile but motivated primarily by worries over the economy, the limited duration of the proposed transitional period may result in either an unsatisfactory Free Trade agreement or else an extension of the transitional deal with the resulting uncertainty this would cause. Businesses share these concerns and at the moment have not been given any clear idea of the potential barriers to seamless trade with the EU that will occur whether or not there is an FTA.

Since the Referendum, the disillusionment with the ruling establishment has continued. It is not a problem peculiar to the UK or engendered by Brexit as there have been similar trends within the EU and in the United States.  Often decried as ‘populism’, it is a visible rejection of mainstream parties, the political status quo and its direction of travel. Our electoral system does not make it easy for new parties to make a breakthrough, but it cannot ultimately prevent radical change if dissatisfaction grows sufficiently. Given the trend amongst the ruling class to respond to their obvious unpopularity by becoming more insular and arrogant, we could see even greater political instability.

The Brexit dividend, which offered an opportunity for our country to reinvigorate freedom, enterprise, democracy and our world-leading traditional strengths for the benefit of all is being wasted. A period of unpredictability on the political front is looking increasingly likely given that it will not be long before the British people conclude en masse that the main problem, which is making their lives and those of their children potentially worse, is the ruling class.

Where do we go now?

Ever since Michel Barnier was appointed to lead the Brexit negotiations for the EU , he has been clear and precise, Unfortunately, neither  the UK Government nor the mainstream media have taken the slightest notice in what he is saying.

In his press statement of 20th December 2017, Barnier laid out the procedure the EU wants the negotiations to follow as everyone moves on to so-called “Phase 2”:-

  • By October 2018 a withdrawal agreement and a new treaty (to cover the transitional period) should be in place, in order for time to get these through the various bodies by 29th March 2019.
  • The old article 50 of TEU allows the negotiation of the withdrawal agreement, which must be completed on time or else there will be no transition period.
  • The new treaty will come into force on 30th March 2019, and I suspect it will be the reverse of an Accession treaty, with transitional derogations.
  • This is where it gets a little complicated. At 23.01 of 29th March 2019 we will have left the EU and will have become a “third country”. Apart from Banier’s talk of a treaty, no one has provided any other detail, so we have to make a guess as to what will happen next.
  • You can’t leave the EU, take up third country status and then carry on as if nothing had happened until 1st. January 2021, when it is possible we will be in the same position as now.
  • So the new Treaty which will cover the withdrawal agreement will come in to force in tandem with the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. Together, these two pieces of legislation would, I suspect, enable us to carry on trading, as we do at present, although it will be only for a fixed period covered by a time-limited transitional derogation.
  • On 1st January 2021, the derogation will cease, and either a new EU/UK trade agreement treaty will be created, or added to the new treaty.

It is hard to believe that our own Parliament is going to place us in such a vulnerable dangerous position. The period from 30th March 2019 to 1st January  2021 gives EU-based companies a more than adequate time frame to allow themselves to extricate themselves from the UK. Meanwhile, the UK government will bang on about this “deep and special relationship” and the wonderful trade deal we will get, yet at the same time, the European Commission and Parliament have both made it very clear that we will be treated like any other third country. Unless UK-based  companies realise the reality of this, they will hit the buffers unprepared.

Our side cannot even get their terminology  correct. “Transitional” is the word the EEC/EU has used since our 1972 Accession Treaty, so why are we talking about an “implementation” period?  In the House of Lords Select Committee session of 13th December 2017 asked what the difference was between transition and implementation  but was not given an answer.

What are the electorate going to say and do when they find the economy is in decline and EU continuity rights have been established? This is no real Brexit.

Both the Prime Minister and David Davis claim that the plan for a transitional (or implementation) period was first mentioned in the Lancaster House speech of 17th January 2017. Michel Barnier , however, claims it was first raised in the Florence speech and this appears correct.

Mrs May said in Florence, “As I said in my speech at Lancaster House a period of implementation would be in our mutual interest. That is why I am proposing that there should be such a period after the UK leaves the EU”

But what she said in the Lancaster speech was ,  “I do not mean that we will seek some form of unlimited transitional status, in which we find ourselves stuck forever in some kind of permanent political purgatory”

Here, Mrs  May uses ”transitional” the commonly used word of the EU since 1972 for such a situation, so why switch to “implementation” if there is not a difference of meaning?  No one seems to have offered us any real answer.

In the Florence speech, she continued, “we believe a phased process of implementation, in which both Britain and the EU institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements that will exist between us will be in our mutual self-interest.”

This all sounds very confusing, but I believe the key to Mrs May’s thinking remains the words in her Lancaster House speech: “I want us to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by the time the two-year Article 50 process has concluded” I take this to mean that she wanted the agreement  done and dusted by Brexit day, which we now know will be 29th March 2019. She did not mean that only a withdrawal agreement would be in place by that date, with a trade deal to follow. She continued: “From that point onwards, we believe a phased process of implementation, in which both Britain and the EU institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements that will exist between us will be in our mutual self-interest”.

“For each issue, the time we need to phase-in the new arrangements may differ. Some might be introduced very quickly, some might take longer.”

Her original objectives seem to be the very opposite of the direction in which we are now heading.  Because so much time has been wasted, instead of applying for an extension to Article 50 of TEU, where we could have carried on for a further 21 months (although we would not have been out of the EU, which would have been politically unacceptable with a general election looming), the  Government has chosen formally to leave the EU at 23.00 hours on 29th March 2017 but then hand over our governance back to the EU, with no representation, and accepting all the institutions of the EU. This is a situation far worse than anything we suffered during our 44 years of membership and all for the hope of a trade deal which still may not be ready to be signed in time.

The worst feature of this proposal is that during those 21 months we would have to accept any new EU legislation  that comes into force during those 21 months, even though David Davis was very evasive when questioned about this during the select committee session of 25th October 2017:

Q89            Mr Djanogly: During that period, will the UK have to accept new EU laws made during that period?

Mr Davis: One of the practical points of this, which anybody who has dealt with the European Union knows—as you will have done, I guess—is that it takes two to five years from inception to outcome for laws to make it through the process. Anything that would have any impact during those two years we are talking about will already have been agreed with us in advance.  Anything that happens during it will be something for subsequent discussion as to whether we propose to follow it or not.  That is where the international arbitration procedure might become important.

So Mr Davis thinks we will have some choice, However, M. Barnier, made it very clear in his speech of 20th December 2017 there will be no cherry picking; we will have to accept EVERYTHING during transition period, including legislation currently in the pipeline.

This is a rather complex and technical subject, but I hope I have been able to convey just how dangerous this “transitional period” is.  My own industry, fishing, would still be stuck with the Common Fisheries  Policy but worse, it would not really be Brexit in anything other than name only.

Mrs May’s EU Vassal State

How much humiliation are Mrs May and Mr Davis prepared take at the hands of our European Union (EU) overlords? When will the pain they are going through reach such a level that they finally grasp the reality of the EU’s superior machinations?  It is now so obvious that the United Kingdom is to be made the latest example of what happens when the power of the EU’s rigid, self-interested bureaucratic and political machine is defied; it cannot be bargained with or changed – just obeyed.  And worse, Mrs May through her mistakes and Mr Davis through his slothful ignorance, has not just allowed it to happen, but made the EU’s worst excesses unavoidable. The first (So-called transitional) phase of  Mrs May’s ‘deep and special relationship with our EU partners’ after 29th March 2019 amounts to being a vassal state to the EU Empire just as around 2000 years ago Judea under King Herod the Great was a vassal of the Roman Empire. They eventually took over completely. The EU is threatening to do the same. What has gone so disastrously wrong?

In January this year Mrs May in her Lancaster House speech ruled out continuing membership of the Single Market (and European Economic Area, EEA aka Internal Market). Continuing membership is possible through membership of EFTA (The European Free Trade Association).  All the UK has to do is join – or rather re-join – assuming the existing EFTA members would have us back, which seems far from improbable. This route offers the ability to limit immigration from the day we leave by unilaterally invoking Article 112 (the Safeguard Measures) of the EEA Agreement.  The EFTA route to EEA membership does give members outside the EU a say in EU legislation affecting the EEA, is largely free (although ‘voluntarily’ Norway does contribute to regional development funds) and is outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The EEA Acquis or body of law is about a quarter of the total EU Acquis since it only relates to successful functioning of the EEA. And EFTA members make their own trade agreements with other countries.  Membership of the EEA solves the problem of maintaining a soft border in Ireland between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland.  It is EEA membership that allows seamless trade since regulatory measures are the same for each side, whereas being a ‘third country’ outside the EEA brings a hard (often protectionist) border with the EU of controls, tariffs, inspections etc.

Mrs May rejected even temporary EFTA/EEA membership (for reasons that have never been stated) and now, in order to get a transitional agreement (to buy time to negotiate a free trade agreement), she is being faced with having to agree a far worse arrangement with the EU (see European Council (Art. 50) meeting (15th December 2017) – Guidelines). For two or more years (subject to EU agreement) we will continue to be subject to the full EU acquis, pay into the EU budget, accept freedom of movement, be unable to make our own trade agreements with other countries,and accept the overall jurisdiction of the ECJ. It gets worse. During this transitional time (after 29th March 2019) the UK would have to accept unconditionally any new additional or amended laws and costs the EU wants to impose. All whilst actually being excluded from any decision making – all pay with no say.

Even an agreement from the EU to this transitional agreement is not a foregone conclusion, in spite of Mrs May being forced to fall into line just to get this far.  She has had to agree to the EU’s methodology for working out outstanding financial liabilities, She has had to accept the ECJ creating a different (potentially privileged) legal status for EU citizens here and the Irish border being effectively an internal EEA border; (though she may not yet realise that is the only workable solution for a soft border). We would be stuck with the Common Fisheries Policy and there is nothing to stop the EU imposing further demands for accepting a transitional agreement or during implementation whilst we remain a vassal state, for example, participation in the emerging EU Army and its common procurement (concealed under the initials PESCO), implementing centrally imposed migrant quotas and paying EU imposed fines.

Mrs May’s recent Brussels ‘triumph’ is more likely a poisoned chalice where there is little incentive for the EU to be accommodating or to hurry up with a free trade agreement.  Such discussions are very much on the EU back burner until after we become a vassal state (aka “leave the EU in name only” on 29th March 2019). Mr Davis talks about having a FTA agreed before we leave the EU and Mrs May talks about its implementation period, but this isn’t going to happen, as explained above. Indeed, it was spelt out by the EU’s Trade Commissioner back in 2016.  Even if they believe what they are saying, these are no more than wishful thinking and no matter how often they repeat them, it won’t make their hopes come true.

Looking at the bigger picture, progress so far by Mrs May, our EU negotiators and the Department for (Not) Exiting the European Union in managing Brexit has been lamentable and cavalier towards managing risk. The recent Joint (progress) Report, (and EU Commission Communication), containing contradictions, fudge and weasel words to appease all interested parties, amounts to 15 pages. Although not legally binding, it is likely to become politically binding upon Mrs May, contradictions and all.  Then there are the 58 non-existent sector-by-sector impact assessments which Mr Davis once claimed existed, but has since denied. How can the best route out of the EU be chosen when those doing the choosing haven’t a clue what could go wrong or even how anything works?  By contrast, here are impressively informative sector-by-sector assessments by Eureferendum.com.

Predicting the future is fraught with imponderables and the potential exists for unforeseen events completely to change outcomes.  So in the end, it is possible that things could be fine. However, judging by experience to date, this looks increasingly unlikely. We can but hope that Mrs May will abandon her single-minded rejection of the EEA/EFTA option, as the options she seems to be pursuing contain impossible contradictions. Perhaps she doesn’t know enough yet to understand all the practicalities. Meanwhile, how long can Mr Davis will keep on talking up imaginary progress towards a free trade agreement whilst getting nowhere and at the same time, making regular, very public gaffes that undermine the credibility of Brexit negotiations?

Another question remains unanswered, perhaps because nobody has asked it yet:– why put all your efforts, concessions and kowtowing into negotiating a complex transitional agreement, which could end up lasting a long time, when a far better (or less damaging) simple solution exists (of EFTA/EEA membership) at least for a transitional arrangement?  You rejected it once, now you are leading us into a worse mess all round until who knows when, why?

Where our negotiators are going wrong- Part 2

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty – or, to quote its proper name, the treaty of European Union (TEU) – is clear and precise with the added advantage that 27 Member States agreed its terms and all 28 current Members reconfirmed these provisions through the Accession Treaty of Croatia. So there can be no legal comeback when the Treaties cease to apply to the UK at 23.01 on 29th March 2019, and competency (control) of our Fisheries Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) ­of 200 nautical miles or median line becomes the responsibility of every single Member of Parliament in Westminster.

We will see the UK leave the Common Fisheries Policy, (CFP) and our EEZ will be operated under the guidance of international Law – UNCLOS3 – well, that is the theory.

Things do get more complicated, however, as Our Westminster Parliament is proposing to bring all the EU legislation in force up to 29th March 2019 (the Acquis), into domestic legislation, and this will include the CFP. This means that, having left the CFP legally and with the full support of all EU member states, our Parliament will then endorse what we have left through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. It will not be the CFP in name, but a carbon copy of the CFP, giving exactly the same rights to EU vessels in our EEZ as they currently enjoy.

It is a pretty poor outcome for our negotiators: All 27 EU member states have returned the competency back to Westminster and Westminster then passes a law giving those rights back.

The Government claims that it will also introduce a Fisheries Bill. At the moment, however, we have no idea of its contents or whether it will be robust enough to ensure UK control of our EEZ enabling us to introduce a UK system of fisheries management during the next stage of the Brexit plan – the two year transitional period also known as implementation period.

The Government does not wish to apply for an extension of the two years stipulated by Article 50, because it is concerned that the 17 plus million voters who supported Brexit will turn against them. Taking nearly three years to leave the EU is just about acceptable but five years would not be tolerated. The Government would be punished at the general election.

So the date of 29th March 2019 will remain as the date of leaving, and at 23.01 of that day we will no longer be a member of the EU and will become a “third country”. This means that all EU treaties cease to apply within the UK, including Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, so while the transitional period will be negotiated under Article 50, the actual implementation of that period will have operate under a different legal basis – a new treaty.

Both the European Commission and the European Parliament (which has a final say on any agreement), have made it very clear that no non member can have the same terms and conditions as a member, which is rather obvious otherwise there would be no point being a member.

One issue of which we can be sure is that, irrespective of the Fisheries Bill, the EU will demand that any implementation treaty must include the Fisheries Acquis and being a treaty, we could find ourselves falling foul of the Vienna Convention on Treaties, especially article 30 and 70, if the EU, a single member state or individual challenges the rights if our own Parliament rescinds what they  established. We could end up in a lengthy legal process.

This transitional/implementation period will be under the full authority of the EU institutions, including the ECJ, but there will be no UK representation at all. Even though the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU stated at a select committee session on 25 October 2017 that no new EU law will be acceptable post Brexit because it will be sorted before Brexit, no cherry picking will be allowed, so we would have to accept any new legislation during that period.

For the past 30 years, successive governments and main political parties have claimed that we hold a considerable degree of influence within the EU, but from April 2019 to March 2021 (perhaps 2022 as the European Parliament would allow up to three years), we would in effect be governed by the EU, as a third country, with no input whatsoever.

The Prime Minister and Ministers have made it very clear during this period that would adhere to International Law on fisheries. It is absurd that over the years, many UK political leaders have condemned the Common Fisheries Policy and yet our own Parliament could end up unilaterally implementing the very policy they condemn. Furthermore, this would not comply in any form to the requirements of International law, UNCLOS 3, especially Article 61 (Conservation of the living resource), Article 62  (Utilization of the living resource), Article 63 (Straddling stocks) and Article 64 (Highly migatory species).

Fishing for Leave has  produced a management plan/model, designed by those with practical experience, for the UK’s fishing EEZ that ticks all the boxes. It is environmentally sustainable, follows International law, creates harmony between fishermen, scientists and fishery officers, while at the same time if will engender a revival of our coastal communities. This plan is based on the Faeroe Islands’ “days at sea” principle, but it has learnt from the Faeroese’ mistakes and is an improvement on the original crude “days at sea” model The Faeroese Government is impressed and is now extremely interested in the FfL model. By contrast, the alternative, which we could yet end up with, is a carbon copy of the present CFP. It will be a complete failure  – socially, environmentally, and economically – and could end up giving the Nation’s resource away permanently.

There are those that appear to think that as far as fisheries is concerned, the UK will still be subservient to the EU after Brexit. With our mixed fisheries, which requires its own plan, we should be the world leader. We will never get another opportunity to do this and it is down to political will. The buck stops with every Member of Parliament in Westminster; the potential is there to make Brexit either a huge success, or a catastrophic failure. Failure will bring with it a very heavy price, because although the responsibility rests with every MP, the electorate will see it as the Government’s fault.