Connect with us

Europe

Will the Malthouse compromise work?

Published

on

On January 15, the British MPs cast their ballots on the Agreement on the British Withdrawal from the EU, which Theresa May had reached with Brussels – “Plan A”. The government lost the vote. On January 29 they voted on the government ‘s “plan B”. In fact, the Cabinet did not suggest anything new, having added a number of concessions for EU citizens in Britain, and abolishing the registration fee for them. In turn, the MPs proposed more than a dozen amendments, of which the Speaker of the House of Commons, J. Berkow, selected but a few. If we are to  understand the intricate mechanism of British politics, as well as the events to come, we must analyze some. Britain’s exit from the EU, according to the law, is scheduled for March 29, 2019.

Significantly, the deputies are divided not only by party affiliation – they create interparty alliances of Brexiteers and Bremainers. Quite frequently they call into question the “party’s general line”, thereby breaking the party discipline. Hence the amendments which reflect acute disagreements in the leading parties whose leaders maneuver between warring factions in their parties.

The opposition leader in parliament, J. Corbin, has proposed excluding a “catastrophic” exit of Britain from the EU without an agreement. His plan is to consider an alternative scenario – a permanent Customs Union with the EU and the option of participation in the EU Common Market, as well as to adopt a law on a referendum in which people will vote on a deal or a proposal that will gain the majority in parliament.

The main point of the amendment proposed by Conservative D. Greve, the former attorney general, was to put the alternatives to T. May’s plan to vote on March 26: the Labors’ plan, a second referendum, an exit “without a deal”, and the “Norwegian version” of relations with the EU. The amendment was supported by some Labor backbenchers and a number of deputies from other opposition parties (Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, Plaid Cymru).

The amendment by Caroline Spelman (Conservative) and J. Dromy (Labor) opposed Britain’s withdrawal from the EU “without the Exit Agreement and the Political Declaration” (but gave no details or specify how to achieve that).

The amendment by Labor I. Cooper and Conservative N. Bols suggested postponing Britain’s exit from the EU till December 31, 2019 (that is, to extend Article 50), if the deputies failed to approve the “deal” of the Prime Minister until the end of February. Such a measure would require the consent of Brussels. This amendment was supported by some Tory backbenchers and several deputies from other opposition parties. The Labor leadership also supported the Cooper Amendment, obliging its deputies to vote in its favor, but wished to cut the term of the extension of Article 50.

Labor MPs from constituencies who voted for Brexit were very dissatisfied about the amendment but it enjoyed the support of those in favor of the second referendum and opponents to exit without a deal (from both parties). However, critics from among the Conservatives argued that the amendment would only postpone the decision indefinitely. In fact, the amendment led to the empowerment of parliament to control the Brexit if the transaction did not take place. Journalists described it as a “legislative torpedo”, which deprives the government of the most important power – to formulate the agenda of parliament. As stated in the House of Commons by T. May, the Greve and Cooper amendments represent a “mechanism for usurping the proper role of the executive branch”, which will lead to “far-reaching long-term consequences for the government of the United Kingdom”. She has a good point here.

The opposite point was suggested by the amendment of G. Brady, the head of the 1922 Committee (which brings together Tory backbenchers). As is known, the stumbling block towards the approval of the Agreement with Brussels became so-called “additional guarantees” (backstop) – the provision that the entire territory of the UK will remain in the EU Customs Union until the issue of border regime between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is settled. It is a kind of “safety valve” against the violation of the 1998 Belfast Agreement on the settlement of the conflict in Ulster between Unionists (Protestants) and Irish Republicans (Catholics). The border should be open, while the exit of Britain from the EU implies its closure (Ireland is a member of the EU, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom). The problem is akin to the quadrature of the circle, so  Brexiteers fear that Britain, under the Agreement with the EU, may remain in the EU Customs Union indefinitely long without the right to unilateral exit or the right to conclude trade agreements with third countries. The latter is one of the most important goals of Brexit.

The Brady Amendment proposed replacing “additional guarantees” with the phrase “alternative arrangements to avoid border closure” as an extra clause to the Agreement. Conservative Brexiteers saw the wording as too vague, doing nothing to lift their concerns about the Agreement. Brexiters from the European Studies Group (led by J. Rees-Mogg) opposed the amendment. However, Brexiteer B. Johnson and others were ready to support the Brady Amendment if T. May would be willing to force the EU to “cut open” the Agreement in order to make legally binding changes, which was significant. However, he withdrew his objections.

The Prime Minister advised the faction to vote in favor of this amendment, which would empower it to negotiate with the EU on this issue. Consequently, T. May got off the ground and supported the amendment, which crossed out her agreements with the EU. The party believes that she should have warned Brussels  long ago that “additional guarantees” had no chance to sail through parliament.

Political maneuvering amidst the Conservatives in relation to the Brady Amendment suggested that, by supporting it, the Brexiteers would gain a few weeks, and will then fail the agreement with the EU again – in February.

The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) deputies, whose support is crucial for the minority government of T. May, were ready to vote for the Brady Amendment: according to their logic, refusing to exit without a deal (under the Cooper Amendment) means bringing the exit closer.

Thus, the Conservatives are divided on the issue of the degree of intensity of ties with the EU in case of exit, whereas the Labor are split on whether to withdraw from the EU at all. None of the amendments, if successful, obliged the government to anything but would impose political obligations on the Prime Minister. The exception is the amendment of I. Cooper – if approved and followed by the adoption of the relevant law, the government would be obliged to obey the law.

VOTING RESULTS: J. Corbin’s amendment rejected (327: 296), Greve’s amendment rejected (321: 301), Cooper’s amendment not adopted (321: 298), since several Labor voted against their party’s policy and the pound sterling rate dropped, the Spelman-Dromy Amendment accepted (318: 310), the Brady Amendment adopted (317: 301).

Since T. May opted for siding with the Brexiteers and supported the Brady Amendment, she formally won, but her success was a Pyrrhic victory. The majority in parliament opposed exit without a deal (the Spelman-Dromy Amendment), which weakens London’s negotiating positions with Brussels (not only because of the results of the 2016 referendum, but also because, as it became clear recently, T. May does not want to rule out exit without a deal).

Thus, the chaos in parliament has manifested itself: the deputies voted for two mutually exclusive amendments – against exit without a deal and for adjusting the Agreement (which the EU refuses to do), thereby paving the way for exiting without a deal (exit without a deal is impossible, but the deal is impossible to accept while changing it is not what Brussels is willing to do). The European Commission Chairman stated: “The agreement is not subject to revision. It seems that some expect the remaining 27 member states to give up on the “additional guarantees” and on Ireland, but this is not a game, but the core of EU membership. The border of Ireland is the border of Europe – that is the priority of our union ”.

The recent voting does not close the chapter on Brexit. According to media reports, the warring factions of Brexiteers and Bremainers in the Tory parliamentary faction have reached an agreement – the so-called “Malthouse compromise” (after the name of a deputy). J. Ries-Mogg and S. Baker of the European Studies Group (the Brexiteer stronghold), together with Deputy Minister of Housing K. Malthouse, agreed with the Bremainers that T. May would first go to Brussels to seek a new wording for “additional guarantees”(on the basis of non-existing  barrier-free checks at the border). If the attempt fails, May will request the EU to extend the transition period until December 31, 2021. In exchange, Britain will fulfill its financial obligations and undertakes to respect the rights of EU citizens in the UK. Such an arrangement will enable both sides to prepare for the withdrawal of Britain from the EU on WTO rules in late 2021.

However, this “Plan B” (which served the interests of a fragile peace in the Conservative camp) has already been described by Brussels as a trick.

It appears that J. Blackford, the leader of the Scottish nationalists in the House of Commons, has expressed the hidden desire of the Brexiteers: readiness to sacrifice Northern Ireland. The Conservatives “tore to shreds” the Belfast Agreement, rejecting an open border with Ireland.

According to the Guardian: “A fairly dubious type of a compromise plan that does not offer a compromise … The new Malthouse Doctrine actually has the same misconceptions of hardline Brexteers, but in disguise. The Prime Minister proposes that the backbenchers vote against their agreements with Brussels so that she could return to Brussels to ask what she knows she will be denied.

May, having voted for the Brady Amendment, has de facto spoken out against her own brainchild in order to stay balancing on the edge of confrontation between the two factions in her party and not hold early elections. The Conservatives do not want to allow for even a fraction of a chance for a victory of Labor, led by ultra-leftist J. Corbin, although the leading opposition party in the country is also split.

Against the backdrop of political battles, businesses have expressed extreme frustration over the continuing uncertainty. Voters are furious over the work of the deputies: according to a survey, the percentage of voters who have voiced their outcry in connection with the situation exceeds 70%, regardless of what they think about Brexit, or their place of residence (city, village).

The political crisis continues.

First published in our partner International Affairs

Head of the Center for British Studies at the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IE RAS), International Affairs observer

Continue Reading
Comments

Europe

Complicated puzzle in the UK

Published

on

Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union has become a major riddle in the country. Many English citizens do not have a complete understanding of the EU, the British government and the UK Parliament’s move to leave the European Union. However, the British authorities seem to have planned a tentative game.

Recently, some western news sources are speaking of an issue called “repeating the Brexit referendum”, and name it as a possible option! An option that had been previously denied by British authorities, including Theresa May, the Prime Minister of the country. According to the France news agency, regarding the increasing doubt about the British Prime Minister’s efforts to conclude an agreement with United Europe, the possibility of holding a second referendum on Brexit has multiplied.

However, one of the goals of the English authorities is to complicate the exit process of the European Union. Accordingly, “Brexit” continues to be an implicit term in Britain’s political equations. the British government, with its widespread negative propaganda against the Brexit, is seeking to re-arrange a referendum. In other words, the European authorities are trying to direct the public opinion about the Brexit.

It should not be forgotten that both Labor and Conservative parties in the UK in the 2016 referendum were opposed to withdrawal from the European Union. The negative propaganda of Theresa May’s government against the Bexit since 2016 is known to everyone. After the British citizens voted to leave the European Union in 2016, the two Labor and Conservative parties (as UK’s two traditional parties) tried their best to change the general vote on this issue.

 The active role played by people like former British Prime Minister Tony Blair can well indicate the dissatisfaction among British authorities over the Brexit. Although it seems that Theresa May is trying to convince legislators to give a positive vote to this agreement, not only members of the Labor Party, but also some members of the Conservative Party are opposing it. The MPs argue that Brexit is basically contrary to the interests of the UK.

 Meanwhile, supporters of the “People’s Vote” campaign, who is now very active in England, believe that the parliament’s negative vote will pave the way for a new referendum on the Brexit. This issue is no way contrary to the demands of Theresa May and the Conservative Party, but it’s secretly supported by them. 

Puzzles in the UK over the country’s exit from the European Union are becoming more and more complex. The European Union is also keen on the continuation of this complicated game. However, it is still not clear if England will eventually leave the European Union. As mentioned, the two traditional British parties were both opponents of leaving Europe.

Labor Party officials led by Jeremy Corbin have also agreed to vote again on the Brexit, and have officially backed this issue. The fact that Britain’s two rival parties have come to an agreement on holding a new referendum has provided the ground for its ultimate realization.

First published in our partner MNA

Continue Reading

Europe

Rift deepens between US and EU over Iran

Published

on

Munich Security Conference 2019: A view of the main conference hall, Image source: MSC / Kuhlmann

Recent days have been witness to two important events: the Middle East Conference in Warsaw (co-hosted by Poland and the US State Department from February 13-14, 2019) and the Munich Conference. Differences between the EU and US over dealing with challenges in the Middle East, especially concerning Iran, were primary during both events.

The Middle East Conference in Warsaw somewhat lacked legitimacy as a number of important individuals were not present. Some of the notable absentees were the EU Foreign Policy Chief, Federica Mogherini, and the Foreign Ministers of Germany, France, and Italy. Significantly, on February 14, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan met in Sochi, Russia to discuss the latest developments in Syria and how the three countries could work together.

The personalized aspect of Trump’s diplomacy

In addition to the dissonance between the EU and US over handling Iran, the dependence of Trump upon his coterie, as well as his overly-personalized diplomacy, was clearly evident. Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor, Jared Kushner, spoke about the Middle East peace plan at the Warsaw Conference, which Trump will make public, after elections are held in Israel in April 2019. The fact that Netanyahu may form a coalition with religious right-wingers could of course be a major challenge to Trump’s peace plan. But given his style of functioning and excessive dependence upon a few exclusive members within his team who lack diplomatic and political experience, this was somewhat expected.

EU and US differences over Iran

While Israel, the US, and Arabs seem to have identified Iran as the main regional threat, the European Union, while acknowledging the threat emanating from Iran, made it amply clear that it disagreed with the US method for dealing with Iran unilaterally and was against any sort of additional sanctions. US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, even went so far as to state that the goal of stability in the Middle East could only be attained if Iran was ‘confronted’. The EU, unlike the US, is opposed to the US decision to get out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

At the Warsaw Conference, Vice President Mike Pence criticized European Union member countries for trying to circumvent sanctions which were imposed by the US. Pence was referring to the SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) launched by Germany, France, and Britain which de facto undermine US sanctions against Iran. The US Vice President stated that the SPV would not just embolden Iran but could also have a detrimental impact on US-EU relations.  

Differences at Munich Conference

The differences between the US and EU over Iran were also visible at the Munich Conference. While Angela Merkel disagreed with Washington’s approach to the Nuclear Deal, she agreed on the threat emanating from Iran, but was unequivocal about her commitment to the JCPOA. While commenting on the importance of the Nuclear Agreement, the German Chancellor said:

“Do we help our common cause…of containing the damaging or difficult development of Iran, by withdrawing from the one remaining agreement? Or do we help it more by keeping the small anchor we have in order maybe to exert pressure in other areas?”

But it was at the Munich Conference that the US Vice President clearly flagged Iran as the biggest security threat to the Middle East. Pence accused Iran of ‘fueling conflict’ in Syria and Yemen, and of continuously backing Hezbollah and Hamas.

GCC Countries at the Warsaw Conference

It is not just the US and Israel, but even representatives of GCC Countries took a firm stand against Iran. A video leaked by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed this.

Bahraini Foreign Minister Khaled bin Ahmed Khalifa stated that it was not the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict but the threat from Iran which posed the gravest threat in the Middle East.  Like some of the other delegates present at the Warsaw Conference, the Bahraini Foreign Minister accused Iran of providing logistical and financial support to militant groups in the region. Similarly, another clip showed the Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Adel Al Jubeir, saying that Iran was assisting and abetting terrorist organisations by providing them with ballistic missiles.

Iran was quick to dismiss the Middle East Conference in Warsaw and questioned not just its legitimacy but also the desired outcome. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani stated that the conference produced an ‘empty result’.

US allies and their close ties with Iran

First, the US cannot overlook the business interests of its partners not just in Europe, but also in Asia, such as Japan, Korea, and India. India is not just dependent upon Iran for oil, but has significantly invested in development of the Chabahar Port. This will be its new modern gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia. New Delhi in fact took over operations of the Chabahar Port in December 2018. On December 24, 2018 a meeting – the Chabahar Trilateral Agreement — was held and representatives from Afghanistan, Iran, and India jointly inaugurated the office of the India Ports Global Chabahar Free Zone (IPGCFZ).

The recent terror attacks in Iran as well as India have paved the way for New Delhi and Tehran to find common ground against terror emanating from Pakistan. On February 14, 2019, over 40 of India’s paramilitary personnel were killed in Pulawama (Kashmir) when a suicide bomber attacked a convoy of Central Reserve Police Personnel (CRPF). The attack is one of the worst in recent years. The terror group Jaish-E-Muhammad claimed responsibility. On February 13, 2019, 27 members of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards were killed in a suicide attack in the Sistan-Baluchistan province which shares a border with Pakistan. Iran stated the attack was carried out by a Pakistani national with the support of the Pakistani state.

In the aftermath, the Indian Foreign Minister, Sushma Swaraj, met with Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Aragchchi en route to Bulgaria. In a tweet the Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister stated that both sides had decided to strengthen cooperation to counter terrorism, remarking that ‘enough is enough’. This partnership is likely to evolve further. In fact, many strategic commentators in India are pitching for an India-Afghanistan-Iran security trilateral agreement to deal with terrorism.

Conclusion

 So far, Trump’s Middle Eastern Policy has focused on Iran and his approach suits both Saudi Arabia and Israel but it is opposed by a number of significant US allies. As a result of the recent terror attack in Pulwama, geopolitical developments within South Asia are extremely important. Thus, the US and GCC countries need to keep a close watch on developments in South Asia and how India-Pakistan ties pan out over the next few weeks. If Iran strengthens ties with India, and given the fact that it already has Russian support, achieving its isolation will be tough for America. New Delhi may have no option but to enhance links with Tehran given its own national security interests in the region. Trump needs to be more pragmatic towards Iran and should think of an approach acceptable to all, and not just the small cabal within his Cabinet that view the region from an anti-modern perspective.

Continue Reading

Europe

Montenegrin political earthquake

Published

on

In mid-January, across Montenegro, one video clip caused a real political storm. For the first time it was seen how a businessman close to the government gives 97,000 euros to Slavoljub Stijepovic, former mayor of capital Podgorica and senior official of the rulling Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS), to fund the election campaign. It all happened ahead of the parliamentary elections in 2016. Dusko Knezevic, chairman of the Montenegro-based Atlas Group, meanwhile suspected of money laundering and other financial malversations, explained that this was just one in series of multi-million donations to the DPS of President Milo Djukanovic, during which time the DPS has never been out of power. This video clip was the first concreate confirmation of something that has long been an open secret in Montenegro.

Ten days after the release of the video Djukanovic confirmed that Knezevic was a donor, but not in the figures stated by Knezevic. The Prosecution Office needed three days to make a statement after Knezevic’s video, which shocked most of the public. Also, it was shocking how the Prosecution Office led the investigation. Thus, after the audio recording as part of the affair Atlas, the former Vice Governor of the Central Bank Velibor Milosevic was arrested expressly, because of the suspicion of being part of a criminal organization, for whose boss is marked Dusko Knezevic. Milosevic was detained for up to 30 days, due to possible influence on witnesses. On the other hand, the video from the beginning of the story was not a sufficient reason to treat Slavoljub Stijepovic in the same way. He was interviewed only 20 days after the appearance of the video, as a citizen. Unlike Velibor Milosevic, who was detained by the prosecutor with handcuffs and in front of television cameras, Stijepovic had the privilege to come to the Prosecutor’s office through the premises of the Ministry of Justice and to come out unnoticed.

The Prosecution Office decided to suspect Stijepovic for the criminal offense of Money Laundering by helping, but Prosecution Office in his case, as in the case of Velibor Milosevic, did not see a threat to the influence of witnesses or the need for detention. According to some media reports, Stijepovic took the guilty upon himself, which is why the Prosecution assessed that there was no need for the hearing of Milo Djukanovic, president of Democratric Party of Socialists and Montenegro. Stijepovic also reportedly told the Prosecution Office the names of DPS activists from the Zeta region who received money. More than 20 were heard in the Prosecutor’s Office, no detention was ordered.

Reaction

On the same day when he was charged with a criminal offense, Stijepovic  came to the session of the Presidency of the Democratic Party of Socialists, where “traditional centers of destruction”, media and other circles, were blamed for current affair, aimed at destabilizing the country. Milo Djukanovic, according to a tried-and-tested model, tried to show that behind this affair are centers of power from Russia. So his media machine was trying to show that Dusko Knezevic is in Moscow and that he work at the orders of the Russian intelligence services. However, it soon became clear that Dusko Knezevic is in London. In an interview with Al Jazeera Balkans in London, Dusko Knezevic presented new accusations against Milo Djukanovic. Dusko Knezevic stated that he has a lot of videos that shows how he personally gives money to Djukanovic. He keeps these videos for the finals of the affair, when he says, will completely reveal the criminal octopus of Milo Djukanovic.

This criminal affair encouraged people to action. Soon protests were organized. The first protests were held on February 2. The protest was organized by a group of citizens who claimed that they started “civil struggle” against the regime in Montenegro, and that behind them stands no organization. With whistles and sirens, the demonstrators scandalized the “Street of Freedom”, “Rise Up, People”, “We Want Justice”, after which they left 97 envelopes in front of the building of the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office, on which they wrote “1,000 Euros” on the one hand, and on the other some of the long-standing unsolved affairs that the Prosecution should solve. On Saturday, February 16th, second large gathering was held in the capital of Montenegro, where the demands to the Protesters Office were presented. From the protest gathering, held under the slogan “97,000 Resist”, urgent and irrevocable resignations were sought from the president of the state and the government, Milo Djukanovic and Dusko Markovic, Supreme State Prosecutor (VDT) Ivica Stankovic, Special State Prosecutor (SDT) Milivoje Katnic and Director of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (ASK) Sreten Radonjic. Since Dusko Knezevic has said that there is a part that is not corrupt in the Democratic Party of Socialists, the protestants decisively denied that. The current events with the new affair of Milo Djukanovic were also used by Albanians from the United States. A truck with the inscription “Meet the Montenegrin president – a man of organized crime in the year 2015” was parked near the White House, the Congress, the State Department, the Montenegrin and the EU Embassy in Washington. On the truck also stood the message “Stop the discrimination of Albanians in Montenegro”.

Conclusion

Montenegro, which is, a NATO member since July 2017 and a candidate for EU membership, is often accused of not doing enough to tackle organized crime and corruption. EU has demanded more concrete results in the fight against corruption at a high political level as one of the main conditions for its making progress towards joining the EU. The entire rule of Milo Djukanovic is marked by affairs, but what this sets out is the fact that Dusko Knezevic is an insider, a man who took part in many important tasks. In addition to his testimonies, Dusko Knezevic also presents video recordings as well as documents. What many analysts spoke and warned about long time ago, now is documented. This affair also clearly demonstrated that all institutions in Montenegro are under the control of Milo Djukanovic. Initially, the scandalous silence of the Prosecution Office after the outbreak of the affair, the subsequent refusal to execute detention measures for Stijepovic, but above all the absence of a hearing of Djukanovic despite the unquestionable evidence of his involvement in illegal work, is in favor of the long-held thesis that these institutions are an integral part of the regime. Judicial institutions do not even try to show that they are independent. There is no doubt that the affair initiated by Montenegrin businessman Dusko Knezevic seriously shaken Milo Djukanovic and his party. It is still early to predict how the affair will culminate because all the evidence Knezevic announces has not yet been published. However, this is clear indication that the West has decided to significantly weak Djukanovic. An attempt by the media machine of Mila Djukanovic to connect Dusko Knezevic with Russian intelligence services, is not accepted in the West. Dusko Knezevic clearly shows that he is doing all the attacks on Djukanovic from London, where he currently lives. The fact that some political parties that are close to the Western Embassies support street protests, which was not the case before, speaks enough. One of the reasons why Milo Djukanovic has been ruling for almost three decades is complete obedience to the West. However, Djukanovic did all the tasks that the West needed, the separation of Montenegro from Serbia, the recognition of Kosovo’s independence, and finally the violent entry of Montenegro into NATO. Now with his biography, which is full of affairs, he is only a burden to the West. In any case, this affair will either take Djukanovic out of power or send him a clear message that it is time for political retirement.

First published in our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy