Mediaboss Marketing

It is the title of the Conservative manifesto, plastered on mugs, T-shirts and the Tory battle bus, while Boris Johnson doesnt miss the chance to say: Get Brexit Done. Like an earlier slogan on a bus, Get Brexit Done is deeply misleading: the UKs departure from the European Union is only the start of a new phase in the Brexit odyssey.

The day after Brexit the UK will embark on arguably the biggest negotiation of the post-war era: to reconstruct 46 years of trade, security and foreign policy ties with the EU. Philip Rycroft, the former permanent secretary of the Department for Exiting the EU, told the Guardian: Obviously its going to be a huge negotiation, probably four or five times bigger than the withdrawal agreement negotiation and will absorb a huge amount of government effort.

Trade is a top priority for both sides. Rycroft, who oversaw post-Brexit planning at DexEU ahead of the original 29 March deadline, said the government had already done a huge amount of work. Some on the EU side wonder whether it will be enough. Lotta Nymann-Lindegren, a former diplomat, who followed Brexit for the Finnish government, said: The discrepancy between the two sides will be bigger in phase two because the United Kingdom has not negotiated any trade agreements in the past 40 years or so. That experience gap will be a challenge for the negotiations that will influence how fast we can go, she added.

On Brexit day, the countdown clocks will reset to a new deadline. If the UK leaves on 31 January, only 11 months remain to hammer out the basics of the future relationship. Michel Barnier, the EUs chief negotiator, told the Guardian that it would be possible to negotiate a basic free-trade deal in that time.

In private, Brussels is much more sceptical. Not in my wildest dreams would I imagine that a possibility, one senior EU diplomat said of the 11-month timetable, citing the difficulties of agreeing a zero-tariff, zero-quota trade deal if the UK seeks to diverge from EU standards on workers rights and environmental protections.

To woo Nigel Farage and Brexit party voters, the prime minister insists that he can negotiate the deal in 11 months, with no extension of the transition period. Labour wants a back-up plan and is pressing to avoid the trap door to no deal on 31 December 2020. Under the transition, the UK remains part of the EU single market and customs union, without decision-making power or representation. The government has until 1 July 2020 to agree with the EU a one-off extension of the transition period, until the end of 2021 or 2022.

If the next government seeks to extend the transition, it could soon run into trouble. Aside from a potential political backlash against vassalage and the inevitable extra payments to the EU budget that come with a longer transition, a decision on extension risks becoming hostage to a deal on fisheries.

The two sides want to agree future fishing quotas by 1 July 2020. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, once described fisheries as a lever in the future negotiations a sign of how seriously EU governments treat this small, but politically-sensitive industry. EU diplomats do not exclude that a fisheries deal may be a quid pro quo for extending the transition. Given how France acts now, its very likely that they will be a difficult partner, another senior diplomat told the Guardian.

Both sides want to prioritise security, such as a replacement for the European arrest warrant and access to crime-fighting databases that are used every day by British police. While negotiators share the same goal, the terrain is strewn with political minefields, such as Brussels insistence that database access is linked to EU rules on data protection and the oversight of the European court of justice, or Germanys constitutional ban on extraditing its nationals to non-EU countries.

Beyond trade and security, there is everything else. The political declaration agreed between Boris Johnson and the EU reveals what lies beneath the tip of the iceberg. The two sides want agreements or cooperation on aviation, carbon pricing, anti-money laundering, illegal migration, data protection, sanctions on rogue states, and much more.

The next Brexit chapter could be more testing for the EU. During phase one, the 27 had a shared interest in seeing the UK pay the Brexit bill and protect the rights of their nationals in the UK. Under phase two, their goals diverge somewhat: The interests of the EU side are more diverse, whether [they focus on] industrial produce, whether it is the labour force they provide, whether it is fisheries, suggests Nymann-Lindegren. Other Brussels sources are more optimistic about maintaining unity, suggesting that member states will be united against any attempt by the European commissions trade department to run the British talks in secret.

While British officials are racking up Eurostar miles, the main parties hope to return to the traditional domestic agenda on public services. But political time and capital will be spent on creating a new immigration system, laws on farming and fishing, competition and industry. Before the referendum, British sources predicted Brexit could dominate the annual Queens speech for several years after the vote. Under the withdrawal act bill, 46 years of EU law will be copy-pasted on to the UK statute book. It would be very odd if the conclusion of all of that is we are not going to do anything about it, Rycroft said. It rather obviates the point of coming out.

Just as the laws are repatriated, so are the controversies, especially over issues such as farm subsidies, GM crops or state aid. An extra layer of complexity will be tussles between Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast (if the Stormont assembly sits) over who gets to repatriate powers from the EU.

So far, the government has managed to negotiate 18 continuity deals covering 48 countries and 8% of UK trade, according to the BBC. But these deals simply rollover existing agreements the UK enjoys as an EU member. For Brexiters, the prize is new trade deals, although the governments own analysis shows that gains will be marginal at best. Looking at these speculative gains in the middle distance, the UKs former ambassador to the EU, Sir Ivan Rogers, has said: There is just an immense volume of technical work, even to aim to stand still, not roll backwards, in the next few years.

The saga of withdrawal has obscured the debate on what Brexit means. EU officials worry that there is no British consensus on the post-Brexit future: whether it is a distant Canada-style free trade deal favoured by Boris Johnson, or the closer ties sought by Labour. Without consensus at Westminster, negotiations in Brussels could soon get stuck again. The UK needs to have a majority for a vision of Brexit, the senior diplomat said. Otherwise we face the same problem. They need to know what their aim is.

Donald Trumps verbal grenade lobbed into the British campaign was a reminder that the UK has a choice: to follow European standards or embrace US regulatory norms. It is the chlorinated chicken conundrum: if the UK chooses to allow imports of US chlorine-washed chicken (and other produce) it will face much tighter controls on the food it can export to the EU, as well as price pressure on British farmers. There is no middle way between regulatory superpowers.

Those unanswered questions are why those who were involved in withdrawal hope that Brexit will be at the centre of the campaign. I dont think the public is ready for [phase two], Rycroft said. He hopes that politicians will level up with the public and give them a clear intention of what is coming down the track, because this story is by no means at an end.

Visit link:
'Get Brexit Done'? The reality will be far more difficult and tortuous - The Guardian

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union plans to allow more U.S. beef imports cleared a key hurdle on Monday when EU lawmakers specializing in trade backed the move, which is likely to ease transatlantic tensions.

FILE PHOTO: Cuts of USDA prime dry-aged beef are seen in the dry-aging room in the lobby of Gallaghers steakhouse in the Manhattan borough of New York City, U.S., July 27, 2017. REUTERS/Mike Segar/File Photo

Members of the parliaments international trade committee voted 26-7, with four abstentions, for an agreement that will see U.S. farmers take up the majority of an existing 45,000-tonne allotment.

The whole of the European Parliament will vote on the deal on Thursday, but it is widely expected to follow the lead of its trade committee. If approved, increased shipments of U.S. beef should start at the beginning of 2020.

The message of this agreement is clear: we would like to de-escalate trade tensions with the U.S., but we want to see the same efforts of de-escalation on the other side of the Atlantic, said Bernd Lange, the head of parliaments trade committee.

He said that the two sides still needed to find a solution to a dispute over subsidies to Airbus (AIR.PA) and Boeing Co (BA.N) and to the U.S. tariffs applied to EU steel, aluminum and olives.

The agreement on beef is designed to settle a dispute that dates back to 1981 when the European Union banned the use of growth hormones in meat across the bloc, including in imports.

The EU and the United States eventually concluded an agreement in 2009 to grant a quota for hormone-free beef imports, which currently stands at 45,000 tonnes.

However, under World Trade Organization rules, the quota also had to be made available to non-U.S. suppliers.

Exporters from Australia and Uruguay, and more recently Argentina, decided to sell into the quota, pushing the U.S. share from nearly 100% to 30%.

Under the deal, to which the other countries had to agree, U.S. farmers will gain an initial 18,500 tonnes of the quota, rising to 35,000 tonnes after seven years.

Reporting by Philip Blenkinsop; Editing by Lisa Shumaker

Go here to see the original:
EU on course to allow in more U.S. beef from 2020 - Reuters

President Donald Trump was supposed to make a decision by Nov. 14 on whether to take action against imports of automobiles and auto parts from the EU.

But with the deadline passed, questions are now being raised over whether he can continue using Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to take any future tariff action. The previously little-used provision allows the president to impose trade restrictions if imports are considered a threat to national security.

An investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 would be potentially more sweeping and would subject numerous European industries, subsidies and other programs to scrutiny. The move would also effectively terminate the national security investigation.

Section 301, which also has been little used by previous administrations, allows the president to impose trade restrictions if an investigation finds that a country is engaged in a practice that is unjustifiable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.

Trump used the Section 301 provision to justify wave-after-wave of tariffs on China after an investigation by the U.S. Trade Representatives Office found that Beijing's policies on technology transfer and intellectual property burden or restrict U.S. commerce.

Those briefed on the latest matter said it wasn't clear which EU trade policies that the administration would target in any inquiry, and whether autos are still the main target of Trump's potential actions.

Trump has consistently complained that the EU imposes a 10 percent tariff on vehicles while the U.S. only has a 2.5 percent import duty on passenger cars. Hes also argued that the current transatlantic trade relationship is unfair because the United States has a $151 billion trade deficit in goods with the EU.

Many countries charge us extraordinarily high tariffs or create impossible trade barriers. Impossible, Trump said last week in an economic policy speech in New York. And Ill be honest: European Union very, very difficult. The barriers they have up are terrible. Terrible. In many ways, worse than China.

The U.S. Trade Representative's Office, which would be responsible for launching a new Section 301 investigation, did not respond to an inquiry on the potential action. The Commerce Department, which is in charge of Section 232 investigations, referred questions to USTR and the White House.

Already, Trump has faced enormous pressure for trying to use national security justification to pursue tariffs on allies.

Trump invoked such a provision to justify duties on steel and aluminum imports that began last year. The law was invoked again to investigate the national security risk posed by imports of automobiles.

Canada, Mexico, South Korea and Japan were able to escape steel and aluminum duties after negotiating trade deals with the U.S., but EU auto imports have remained in the administrations cross hairs.

Section 232 gives the president a 180-day time limit to negotiate agreements to address any national security concerns, if he decides to punt on imposing tariffs, but it doesnt require an announcement, said Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow with the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer submitted a report to the president last week providing Trump an update on the European negotiations, but a decision was never made.

A recent court ruling has raised questions about whether Trump's failure to make a decision by the deadline nullifies his use of the law to threaten auto tariffs.

The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled last week that Trump violated a separate Section 232 deadline when he tried to double steel duties on Turkey in August 2018 after a 90-day deadline.

Trump has since reduced the steel tariffs on Turkey back to their original level of 25 percent but the ruling provides the first instance of a court pushing back on the presidents use of the law.

The presidents expansive view of his power under section 232 is mistaken, and at odds with the language of the statute, its legislative history, and its purpose, the court wrote in a Nov. 15 opinion.

Critics of Trumps use of the statute have held up the ruling as a clear indication that the window for tariffs has closed.

As a recent U.S. trade court opinion stated, the presidents authority to impose national security tariffs or other import restrictions under Section 232 is not indefinite, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) said. With the 180-day deadline having passed, the window for new national security taxes on imported automobiles has closed.

Legal experts say the ruling also puts firmer ground under future challenges to any action Trump might take now on auto tariffs against the EU.

I strongly believe if the president were to impose tariffs now, there would unequivocally be legal challenges, said Jennifer Hillman, a Georgetown University law professor who previously served as a WTO judge and general counsel at USTR.

They could be at substantial risk of losing that one, she added.

Continue reading here:
Exclusive: Trump weighs new trade investigation to justify tariffs on EU - Politico

The Europol headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands, as seen in 2016. Europol announced Monday that over 26,000 items related to terrorist propaganda were removed from the internet. Mike Corder/AP hide caption

The Europol headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands, as seen in 2016. Europol announced Monday that over 26,000 items related to terrorist propaganda were removed from the internet.

In a major blow to terrorist radicalization efforts, European law enforcement agencies have stripped Islamic State propaganda from popular online services such as Google and Twitter.

Over 26,000 items, which included videos, publications, social media accounts and communication channels, were flagged by authorities as being terrorist propaganda. Europol, the European Union's law enforcement agency, sent those items to several online service providers for removal.

"For the time being, for as far as we know, IS is not present on the internet anymore and we will see how fast, if ever, they will regain service," Belgian Federal Prosecutor Eric Van Der Sypt said at a press conference Monday.

Authorities said that services such as Google, Twitter, Instagram and Telegram cooperated with the European-wide efforts to disrupt terrorist activities. Telegram, an online messaging platform used by about 200 million users, contained the most offending material, which resulted in a "significant portion of key actors within the IS network" being removed from the service.

As part of the operation, an individual suspected of distributing terrorist propaganda was arrested in the Canary Islands by Spanish police. Head of Counter Terrorism of the Spanish Guardia Civil Alberto Rodrguez Vzquez said the individual self-radicalized himself and others.

"His role in the dissemination is in the process of being established, but evidence points to the indoctrination of other individuals in his place of residence, where he exerted a sort of religious authority," Rodrguez said.

These latest actions are part of an ongoing effort by E.U. member states to disrupt the communication networks of terrorist organizations.

In April 2018, law enforcement agencies of the E.U., Canada and the United States seized servers and data from the IS, forcing it to rely heavily on online social media and messaging services.

"This shift to online service providers allowed Europol and investigators in Member States to focus their work on the social media networks used by the IS media operatives, resulting in the actions day of November 2019," Europol said in a statement.

According to the BBC, a pro-IS media group said the takedown campaign may drive sympathizers underground where it is harder for authorities to monitor terrorist activity.

See more here:
Islamic State 'Not Present On The Internet Anymore' Following European Operation - NPR

Prime Minister Boris Johnson's plan to "get Brexit done" by the end of 2020 risks creating "the biggest crisis of Brexit to date," the United Kingdom's former ambassador to the European Union has warned.

Johnson has insisted that he will not extend the Brexit transition period beyond its current end date of December 2020, meaning UK and EU negotiators will have less than 12 months to secure a brand new free trade deal.

The transition period is designed to give businesses and people time to prepare for life outside of the EU. During that time, the UK will continue to follow EU trading rules.

Failure to secure a deal will mean that Britain will drop out onto costly World Trade Organisation Rules at the end of the transition period, which the government's own analysis suggests would cause significant damage to the economy.

Rogers, who resigned as the UK's most senior representative to the EU in 2017, said Johnson's "get Brexit done" approach meant a fresh crisis in 2020 was "virtually inevitable," as there won't be enough time to negotiate a new trade deal.

"It all points to a repetition of exactly the syndrome we have suffered for the last three [years]," Rogers said in a lecture at Glasgow University on Monday evening.

"And a repetition of myopia on which ultimately lands us with a poor and deteriorating relationship on multiple things that really matter, economically and strategically."

He described Johnson's plan as "diplomatic amateurism dressed up domestically as boldness and decisiveness."

Rogers said the prime minister's insistence that he will not extend the transition period despite the risk of severe economic consequences would leave him boxed in when trade talks with the EU get underway.

"In practice, this prime minister is, for all his talk of getting Brexit done, now basically replicating the strategy errors of 2016 and 2017, which brought his predecessor [Theresa May] down," Rogers said.

The former civil servant said the prime minister will likely make "a lot of concessions" in trade talks because a short timetable will give Brussels even more leverage in negotiations.

He said: "Because we are under time pressure and known to be desperate to 'escape vassalage' by the end of 202... the EU side just sees a huge open goal opportunity and repeats its playbook from the Article 50 process."

If the UK leaves the EU on January 31, it'll have just eleven months to negotiate a new trade deal.

However, both sides will also need to ratify the agreement. On the EU side, this means getting it through the European Council, European Parliament, and national and regional parliaments across the EU27 member states.

The EU's negotiations with both the Ukraine and South Korea each took nearly a decade. Its recent negotiation with Canada took nearly eight years, and was briefly held up by a regional parliament in Wallonia, Belgium.

IvanRogers, Britain's former Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the European Union, leaves the The Houses of Parliament after giving evidence to a parliamentary sub-committee, in London, Britain February 1, 2017. REUTERS/Neil Hall

Rogers has been a vocal critic of the UK government's handling of Brexit since quitting his position.

Earlier this year, he told Business Insider that there might eventually be a public inquiry into how politicians handled Britain's exit from the EU.

He also rubbished talk of a "clean break" Brexit, and said the UK would be in negotiations for years.

"We are going to be negotiating on everything from aviation to farming for evermore with our biggest neighbour. We cannot live in glorious isolation," he said at a talk earlier this year.

"Talk to the Swiss and to the Norwegians they live in a permanent state of negotiation with the EU."

The rest is here:
Boris Johnson's 'amateurism' risks the 'biggest crisis of Brexit' yet, says the UK's former chief EU diplomat - Business Insider