Mediaboss Marketing

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

Ireland is wooing Indian companies that have plans of going global, especially if they are targeting the European Union, to set up operations in the country. With the UK exiting the European Union, Indian companies can use Ireland to tap into the larger European market, according to Brendan Ward, Irelands Ambassador in India.

Not every Indian company would wish to leave the United Kingdom after Brexit. Many of them were established specifically for the British market. But those that have European interests and that are looking at the wider European market, then a location in Ireland might very well make sense. A lot of them are looking at that at the moment. We are in contact with those who we think might benefit from having a presence in Ireland, Ambassador Ward, who assumed office in August, told BusinessLine here.

The Ambassador and his economic team met some Chennai-based companies last week, explaining to them the benefits of establishing a base in Ireland. Around 100 Indian companies already have operations in Ireland, according to Ward.

There is a substantial Indian population 35,000-40,000 in Ireland, accounting for almost 1 per cent of the countrys population. It means that there is a critical mass to allow community events, cultural and social events...slightly better Indian restaurants than we have had in the past, says Ward.

Some of the sectors that are important in Ireland are agriculture and food, pharmaceuticals, ICT, life sciences, financial services, future mobility and technologies such as artificial intelligence. These sectors are important to the Indian economy too and hence there are possibilities of synergies and for exchanges through research initiatives, according to him.

On his meeting with Chennai-based companies, Ward said most of them were quite positively disposed. What we focussed on in the meetings was in advising them of the advantages and how they could benefit if they were going to globalise, if they are looking to have a footprint in Europe, if they are interested in research cooperation, he said.

There are Irish Government agencies, with offices in Mumbai, that can assist Indian companies in setting up operations in the country.

Ireland, Ward said, offers a few advantages which many other European States dont, such as a competitive tax system and a very clear and simple one. Also, somewhat easier labour laws than many other European Union States. Of course, we have high standards for the protection of workers, but some of the measures in other European Union member States make for a very inflexible labour market. We do promote flexibility and a business-friendly atmosphere.

There are over 5,000 Indian students studying in universities and colleges in Ireland. This year, around 2,000 Indian students have gone to study in Ireland and the number is increasing every year.

The education system in Ireland is similar to that in Britain. Ireland, according to the Ambassador, offers students the opportunity of working for two years after they graduate; they can do part-time work even as a student to pay a part of their education expenses.

Besides, there are a lot of research collaborations between Indian companies and Irish universities.

Bilateral trade between Ireland and India was growing at a healthy rate. In 2018, overall trade in goods was about $1 billion, with the balance in Indias favour. However, trade in services was around $3 billion, heavily weighed in Irelands favour. This, the Ambassador said, was not a matter of concern for either of the countries.

Ward said Ireland could do a lot more to attract India film producers looking for exotic locales to choose the country for their films.

This, in turn, would push up tourism from India. Ireland had a fairly vibrant film industry. There was a lot of cooperation in post-production work, especially in special effects, between Indian film producers and Irish companies.

On the long-drawn discussions over a free trade agreement between the EU and India, the Ambassador said the positions of the EU and India were still far apart and work was going on to bridge those gaps, with agriculture being one of the major sticking points. He hoped that there would be significant progress in the discussions before the EU-India summit slated for next year.

We would like to see significant progress on the FTA and use the summit as an opportunity to give it a boost. But the current state of negotiations doesnt indicate that is likely, he added.

Read more from the original source:
Post Brexit, India can use Ireland as window to EU: Envoy - BusinessLine

Over the past year or so, the European Union has committed a string of strategic blunders in the Western Balkans that have destroyed whatever little influence and credibility it still had.

In June last year, Macedonia agreed to add the qualifier "North" to its name in a bid to end Greece's blockage of membership negotiations with the EU.

But having done what no other country in recent memory has done change its name in order not to offend a more powerful neighbour North Macedonia soon found a new, unexpected obstacle on its EU path: France's president, Emmanuel Macron. France led putting the brakes on opening membership talks in October 2018, despite the Prespa Agreement with Greece.

At a contentious summit of EU leaders in Brussels last month, an ill-tempered Macron strong-armed the EU into yet again postponing the opening of membership talks with North Macedonia and Albania.

This time, he insisted that no membership talks should begin before the EU has reformed the way the talks are conducted, and that no new member should be allowed to join before the EU had undergone a (still amorphous) deep internal reform.

To many in the Balkans, it looked like the EU was slamming the door in their face.

Since then, it has become obvious just how much first-mover advantage matters. Paris is, by default, now steering the EU's overall policy agenda toward the Western Balkans. This seems to be the opening volley and test bed for Macron's goal of recalibrating the entire EU agenda.

And despite early hopes that his election would usher in a reverse wave of progressive policy in the EU, Macron is demonstrating that political liberalism and elite accountability are not central pillars of his EU reform agenda.

France finally presented its ideas about how to reform the accession process in a thin briefing paper in mid-November.

The vacuous ideas outlined in the paper rearranging the current 35 policy chapters into which accession talks are divided into seven stages make it clear that France has no serious proposals to make. The fact that the paper was presented just days before EU ministers were supposed to discuss enlargement, and that as a consequence there was no time for meaningful preparation for that discussion, further underscored the shallowness of the French position.

It became evident that Macron's concern was not with the EU's enlargement policy but with something rather different. Suspicions that this was about seizing a leadership role for France in a post-Brexit EU, with Germany paralysed politically, seemed to be confirmed.

The French brief, as well as various other ill-thought-through ideas making the rounds following France's veto, did not present any fresh insights as to why the accession process in the Western Balkans has failed to be transformative as it was during earlier rounds in central and eastern Europe notwithstanding the fact that since their accession, Hungary and Poland have themselves reversed much of their democratic evolution.

The two-month window within which the largely supine Europe ministers tasked the European Commission to develop a revised enlargement policy, as per Macron's proposal, demonstrated the lack of seriousness and analysis.

We have been vocal for many years about the ways in which the EU's current approach has emboldened and enriched incumbent elites, weakened and alienated civil society, deepened economic inequality and failed to entrench democratic values, institutions, and practices in the region.

Our organisation has also offered practical as well as more philosophical ways in which the enlargement process should or could be reconstituted, notably by relying far less on incumbent elites and instead mobilising existing popular constituencies for reform.

But ditching the current enlargement policy and framework without understanding why it is not working is policy vandalism, not reform.

The full panoply of EU-led Western policies in the Balkans needs critical review before there is a reboot. Such a review must centrally involve independent actors, not just local elites and the EU's bureaucracy.

The lack of depth of analysis and reflection for a policy shift of the magnitude proposed is astounding. It also reverses the meaningful (but still insufficient) strides made toward an honest policy in the European Commission's "new strategy" toward the Western Balkans, unveiled less than two years ago.

The French policy amounts to prescription with only cursory symptomatic diagnostics. The prescription offered amounts to hospice care.

First, the French proposal as were many earlier unofficial proposals is overwhelmingly focused on economics. Flip-flopping between a political and economic focus has long been the EU's response to failing policies in the Balkans, while ignoring the reasons for such failures: all rooted in a lack of insistence on political accountability and direct civic engagement based on EU foundational values.

But this is particularly remarkable following the EU's belated recognition of state capture being a widespread phenomenon among candidate and aspirant countries.

These countries' politics have always revolved around dominating the economic sphere, formal and informal. Tellingly, the terms "state capture" and "corruption" are absent from the French proposal.

Perhaps most importantly, the proposal makes no mention of liberal values, freedoms, democracy, or political accountability. Advocates of these foundational concepts in the Western Balkans will find themselves on even shakier ground should the French proposal or a derivative thereof be adopted as the EU's policy.

The EU has long since largely accepted and often reinforced the dominance of a for-profit, illiberal political class, who are still allegedly "partners" in reform. Therefore, the proposal's lament of a lack of transformation rings hollow. When did the EU ever make transformation its overarching priority?

Increased transfusions of money are offered as social sedatives, easing the pain of exclusion for the foreseeable future from the EU.

The linking of increased "concrete benefits" with their stated goal to "prevent migratory movements" is revelatory of the mindset with which Macron's team developed this vision. What is desired is nothing less than a 'cordon sanitaire'. The policy might be summarised as 'containment with benefits' for the political elites of the Western Balkans.

Further, the relegation of foreign affairs to the sixth stage or circle is stunningly incongruent with the geopolitical angst long evident in Paris and other EU capitals.

It contradicts the current (weak) policy of "gradual alignment," implying that the EU should indulge the deeper rooting of illiberal actors in the political economies of the region. It also, cynically, might be viewed as consigning these countries to the permanent periphery, given the depth that Russia, China, Turkey, and the Gulf States may have woven themselves into the region after the first five stages.

Sadly, many in the region and concerned with it seem intent on finding a bright side in France's vision, out of desperation. But there is none.

Should these policies be adopted, citizens of these countries will be right to view the EU and other foreign actors in the same vein self-seeking parts of the problem, rather than part of the solution and align nonviolently against them all accordingly.

Should some EU member states cringe at such a prospect, as they should, they missed a good opportunity to speak up. They have precious little time left to do so.

More here:
Macron's Balkan cordon sanitaire will backfire on EU - EUobserver

Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Russia Calling! VTB Capital Investment Forum on November 20, ... [+] 2019 in Moscow.

Ukraine: friend or foe?

Climate change: real or imagined?

And what about the European Union? Are they on their way to becoming the liberal, latte with almond milk peace-and-love version of the Soviet Union or not?

Last week, Russian president Vladimir Putin entertained questions from dozens of people from investment houses like DuPont Capital in Delaware and BlackRock in New York to executives of varying levels out of China, Italy and France during VTB Capitals Russia Calling! investment forum.

Putins Q&A with foreign investors is why everyone comes to the VTB Capital event. Two years ago, he gave his spiel on the economya mostly boring rundown of economic data he got from his finance ministry and central bankand then left the room. The standing-room-only crowd followed him out the door.

This year, Putin gave his two cents and more on the economy, praising his economic team because economics is not his strong suit, and then sat down in white, leather club seats with executives from Eni and elsewhere, manspreading and slouching in that commanding-the-room presence for which Putin is known.

Most of the questions are strictly business-related. They almost seem boring to Putin. Budget matters for bond lords doesnt really get him going. When the questions turn to geopolitics, Putin can talk a horse off a meat wagon.

Putin Sheds Doubts On Ukraines Domestic Crisis

Putin sews doubts that new Ukrainian leader Volodymir Zelenskiy can solve the crisis in the Donbass.

On Ukraines new president Volodymyr Zelensky, Putin was asked for his impression of the comedic actor-turned-president.

He seems very nice. He seems sincere, Putin says, on his usual best behavior in public forums like this.

Russia and Ukraine have been at loggerheads since 2014. Thats when Russia annexed Crimea following a decision by the autonomous government there to put up a Brexit-style vote. Crimeans largely voted to leave Ukraine. The Russian government swept in within two weeks of that referendum and took it over, securing their only warm water naval port, a port they would have surely lost in the eventuality of a Ukraine-NATO membership.

Things got worse in the relationship when ethnic Russia militias in the region of Ukraine known as the Donbass decided to build a separatist movement with tacit support from the Kremlin. An estimated 13,000 people have died in what many have referred to as a civil war between official Ukraine and the pro-Russian separatists. It led to harsher sanctions on Russia, further isolating the country from the West.

Now that Zelensky is in power, maybe things will change, one questioner speculated out loud.

Putin said, I believe Zelensky when he says he wants to change the situation for the better in the Donbass. But can he do that? I dont know. If the nationalist battalion forces return, there will be an immediate reaction from the (Luhansk and Donetsk) militias. We see issues that are being raised now on law changes and on the Minsk agreement that are counterproductive.

Ukraine sentiment indicators? Headwinds. Score status quo stalemate for the win.

The Dark Ages

Exhaust air rises into the sky from the chimneys of the Moorburg coal-fired power plant in Hamburg, ... [+] Germany behind a wind turbine.

Russia is the worlds leading natural gas producer, and one of the largest oil producers in the world, too. Their government budget depends on oil and gas exports. Their biggest marketthe European Unionis embarking on a policy to eradicate fossil fuel use within a few years, though these policies keep changing.

Russia is a signatory to the Paris Climate Accord and the Kyoto Protocol on CO2 emissions. Were do everything we can to make Russias economy cleaner and greener, he said, adding that a large portion of that is improved environmental practices in a country that, under the Soviet Union, had no real environmental standards.

Regarding pressure to get with the climate change program, Putin said that they had no money to make adjustments to factories to make them less polluting. Plus, following at least two major economic crises since the collapse of the economy since 1992, we had other priorities. But now we have the money and the growth to do it. Well implement fines and penalties on polluters first in the big cities, he said.

Putin also didnt seem too worried about Europe ditching Russian gas in favor of windmills and solar panels.

Theyll need to have a base load of something. Maybe it can be nuclear power. If its not going to be nuclear power, it will be natural gas, he said. If their demand falls, China and India are growing faster than Europe, and they will buy it. Getting rid of fossil fuels, unless youre replacing it with new nuclear reactorsyoure at risk of returning Europe to the dark ages.

EU as USSR?

The EU: Too commie? Nah, Putin doesn't buy it.

One of the more unusual questions at last weeks event came from a U.S. fund manager who asked if the EU was dangerously similar to the USSR. The European Central Bank is creating money out of pixie dust, the questioner said. Everything is pushed on people for the greater good. It sounds like the Soviet Union to me, he said.

(He really said that. Youll have to trust me on this one. I was there.)

The EU has more obligatory rules than the Soviet Union had, and the EU is more centralized, but beyond that I dont think they are similar, Putin said.

Putin said what he always says about the EU, that it is a reliable and important trading partner, and they dont want to see it fall apart.

At times jovial, he took the EU question seriously as opposed to another one on shale oil where he joked that maybe Russia can buy used shale drilling equipment from the Americans. He cannot, and he knows that. They are sanctioned from buying such things.

I think the EU understands its challenges, Putin said. An estimated 2,500 people were in attendance at the forum. They are not going to collapse like the Soviet Union collapsed. The Soviet Union didnt collapse because of a few revolts in the Baltics. It was because the economy was a failure and it had no one it was really trading with beyond its political borders. Thats not the case with Europe.

Continued here:
Putin Dishes On Ukraine, Climate Change, And Whether Europe Is Becoming Soviet - Forbes

26 November 2019, 11:12

Two activists disagreed on Brexit in a Youth Debate hosted by Iain Dale.

Darcy Iveson-Berkeley, a Brexit Party activist, said: "With regards to Brexit, there's no such thing as a hard Brexiteer or a soft Brexiteer in my opinion.

It was invented by the Remain Alliance. Leaving the European Union means leaving the European Union."

Chloe White, who supports Labour, responded: "With no deal? What is that going to do to people?"

She added: "That is going to cost 2.7 per cent of GDP."

Iain Dale asked Chloe: "How can you have somebody who wants to be prime minister sugge

sting a referendum on which they won't express a view? The electorate regard that as ludicrous."

She replied: "I think he's taking a pragmatic decision and that's what politics needs right now.

"We've got Boris Johnson, who's peddling some sort of odd disaster capitalism, which is going to hurt working families in this country.

"Or we've got Jeremy Corbyn, who's saying to people the country has been split, it's divided. We've got huge rising levels of hate crime, people are deeply unhappy.

Okay, let's organise and sort out a deal with the EU that is fair, that protects workers rights, which protects he environment."

Aleisha Stansfield, a Liberal Democrat activist, intervened in the debate.

She said: "We do, of course, have Jo Swinson who says stop Brexit and use the 50bn."

This clash was part LBC Election Youth Debate. All activists were 21 or under.

You can watch it in full here.

Read the rest here:
Young Labour and Brexit Party activists explosively clash over leaving EU - LBC