May
dá início ao divórcio e faz ameaça velada a Bruxelas
Sugestão
de que a cooperação de segurança pode ser afectada caso o Reino
Unido saia da UE sem um acordo ensombrou o dia, apesar de todos
prometerem negociações “construtivas”.
Ana
Fonseca Pereira
ANA FONSECA PEREIRA
29 de Março de 2017, 20:17
O primeiro dos 730
dias da contagem decrescente até ao “Brexit” começou com
palavras tranquilizadoras e gestos de conciliação. A
primeira-ministra britânica garantiu que o seu país quer continuar
a ser “um amigo e aliado próximo” da União Europeia; o
presidente do Conselho Europeu assumiu a tristeza por ver chegar este
dia mas prometeu que os restantes 27 países vão assumir uma posição
“construtiva” nas negociações. Depressa, porém, se instalou um
tom crispado no vaivém de declarações entre Londres, Bruxelas e as
restantes capitais europeias, perante a sugestão feita por Theresa
May de que, se o país não conseguir um acordo de saída
satisfatório, isso poderá prejudicar a cooperação em matéria de
segurança e combate ao terrorismo.
A carta há muito
prometida pelo Governo britânico foi entregue a Donald Tusk às
12h25, pondo simultaneamente fim a nove meses de expectativa e
estipulando que, a menos que haja um acordo unânime em contrário, o
Reino Unido sairá da UE a 29 de Março de 2019. “Não há qualquer
razão para fazer de conta que este é um dia feliz, nem em Bruxelas,
nem em Londres”, disse o presidente do Conselho, de semblante
carregado e com a missiva de seis páginas na mão. Tusk afirmou que
o “Brexit” deixou os restantes 27 “mais determinados e mais
unidos”, mas acredita que ninguém vai sair a ganhar. “No
essencial, estamos a falar de controlo de danos”, afirmou,
explicando que a prioridade da UE será “minimizar os custos para
os cidadãos, as empresas e os Estados-membros”.
À mesma hora, em
Londres, May anunciava no Parlamento que o país acabava de enveredar
por um caminho sem retorno – “O Reino Unido vai deixar a UE. Este
é um momento histórico que não pode ter retrocesso”, afirmou,
perante os aplausos de muitos dos deputados que há duas semanas a
autorizaram a desencadear o processo de saída, cumprindo o mandato
saído do referendo de 23 de Junho. Na sua intervenção e no debate
que se prolongou por mais de três horas, a líder conservadora
repetiu o essencial dos objectivos que traçou no seu discurso de
Janeiro – a saída do mercado único europeu, a ambição de
construir uma “parceira profunda e especial” com a UE, com quem
quer também negociar um “acordo de livre comércio arrojado e
ambicioso”.
A ninguém escapou,
contudo, uma importante omissão. Desta vez, May não repetiu o aviso
de que “nenhum acordo é melhor do que um mau acordo”, nem deixou
subentendido (como tinha feito em Janeiro) que se Bruxelas lhe negar
um acordo comercial o Reino Unido poderia adoptar uma política de
dumping fiscal que lesaria a economia europeia. Na carta que
endereçou a Bruxelas, insiste também que os dois lados devem
negociar “de forma construtiva e respeitosa, num espírito de
cooperação sincera” e escreveu por duas vezes que Londres não
esquecerá as suas “obrigações enquanto Estado-membro que está
de saída” – uma referência ao montante que o país poderá ter
de desembolsar antes de concluir um acordo com a UE.
Duas notas
dissonantes
Na mesma carta,
porém, Theresa May insiste que o acordo para a saída deve ser
negociado em simultâneo com “os termos da futura relação”
entre os dois blocos, ignorando todos os avisos feitos em Bruxelas de
que só depois de definidos os aspectos mais cruciais do divórcio se
poderá discutir as bases de um acordo comercial ou as condições
para um período de transição. Foi isso mesmo que a chanceler
alemã, Angela Merkel, fez questão de reafirmar esta quarta-feira,
na mesma declaração em que garantiu que os 27 assumirão uma
postura “justa” nas negociações. “O Reino Unido e a UE,
incluindo a Alemanha, criaram laços apertados ao longo dos anos.
Temos de clarificar como podem esses laços ser desatados e temos de
lidar com muitos direitos e obrigações associados à pertença à
UE. Só depois poderemos falar sobre o futuro das nossas relações.
Mas se este finca-pé
já era esperado, um outro fez soar os alarmes europeus assim que a
carta começou a ser lida em pormenor. Nela, May liga explicitamente
as relações comerciais que quer garantir com a UE após o “Brexit”
à cooperação em matéria de segurança. E deixa uma ameaça
“implícita e velada, mas muito clara para quem quiser ver”,
escreveu o Politico: Se o Reino Unido deixar a UE sem conseguir um
acordo satisfatório, não só as trocas comerciais vão passar a
reger-se pelas regras da Organização Mundial de Comércio como, “em
matéria de segurança, isso significaria que a cooperação na luta
contra o crime e o terrorismo sairia enfraquecida”.
“Ela está
realmente a dizer que a segurança do nosso país pode ser negociada
como moeda de troca nestas negociações?”, indignou-se o deputado
trabalhista Stephen Kinnock. Numa conferência conjunta em Bruxelas,
o presidente do Parlamento Europeu, Antonio Tajani, e o responsável
da instituição para as negociações, Guy Verhofstadt, também não
esconderam o desagrado com aquilo a que um diplomata europeu citado
pelo Guardian descreveu como “chantagem”. “Acho que a segurança
dos nossos cidadãos é demasiado importante para que seja usada como
moeda de troca nas negociações”, disse Verhofstadt.
Um porta-voz de
Downing Street assegurou que não se trata de uma ameaça, mas da
constatação de um facto: “Se sairmos da UE sem qualquer acordo,
todos os mecanismos que enquadram a nossa presença na UE vão
desaparecer, incluindo os de segurança”. Mas a ministra do
Interior britânica, Amber Rudd, viria pôr ainda mais achas na
fogueira ao afirmar que se o Reino Unido deixar a Europol, a agência
de coordenação policial europeia “da qual é o principal
contribuinte”, vai “levar consigo a informação que lhe
pertence”.
Sexta-feira, Tusk
vai divulgar a proposta com as linhas de orientação da UE para as
negociações e na próxima semana o Parlamento Europeu aprova uma
resolução em que assume uma postura dura face às exigências
britânicas. A posição europeia só ficará fechada, no entanto,
dentro de um mês, na cimeira que reunirá os restantes 27. No final
da sua conferência de imprensa, Tusk garantiu que os europeus
“agirão como um só”. E, numa primeira despedida aos britânicos,
rematou: “O que posso dizer mais? Já sentimos a vossa falta.
Obrigada e adeus”.
 |
There's
no going back – May has burned the boats of a divided nation
Martin Kettle
Wednesday 29 March
2017 19.59 BST Last modified on Thursday 30 March 2017 01.00 BST
Like Aeneas fleeing
from Troy on the shore of Italy, or Cortés on the coast of Mexico,
it was a moment for the burning of the boats. On Wednesday Theresa
May burned hers. But they were our boats too that she burned,
Britain’s boats, boats in which, for half a century, postwar
Britain has tried to reconcile its history and its future in Europe –
and failed. For good or ill on both sides of the channel, Britain
will not be returning to the European Union.
It doesn’t get
more serious than that for this country. Yet it ended, as it began,
with more of a whimper than a bang. As 1973 dawned, the Guardian
reported that Britain had embarked on its membership of Europe
without fireworks. “It was difficult to tell that anything of
importance had occurred,” records the paper’s front page, “and
a date which will be entered in the history books as long as
histories of Britain are written, was taken by most people as a
matter of course.”
Forty-four years
later, as Britain began packing its bags to leave, there was perhaps
more excitement among the political and journalistic classes. The
most predictable front page of the year was the Daily Mail’s single
word headline on Wednesday: “Freedom!” But the Guardian surely
got the wider national mood more accurately: “Britain steps into
the unknown.”
Politically, it was
momentous. A version of the same resistance to continental
encroachment that fired Henry VIII’s break with Rome 500 years ago
has triumphed again. Out in the country, much as in 1973 or even
1534, people got on with life as usual. If they were delighted or
anxious, they mostly didn’t show it. There were no crowds in the
streets this time and no celebrations or protests to speak of either.
People kept their feelings quiet. Trains ran. The stock market was
unmoved. Rain came in from the west. As usual, a million people went
to the doctor.
Nevertheless it was
the most important and the most carefully choreographed day of
Theresa May’s prime ministership, and she did her best to rise to
the occasion. Her speech to the Commons was consensual and without a
single triumphalist note. Only Sir Bill Cash on the leave side and
the SNP’s Angus Robertson on remain’s managed to raise the
emotional temperature in the chamber.
European council
president Donald Tusk holds Theresa May’s article 50 letter at a
Brussels news conference. Photograph: Yves Herman/Reuters
None of it affected
the prime minister, however. In her letter to Donald Tusk there was a
not so veiled threat to take UK defence and security commitments to
Europe off the table if the EU forces too hard a bargain on single
market access. If nothing else, that was proof of how badly May wants
a deal in her own prescribed timeframe of two years. What a gambler
the vicar’s daughter has turned out to be.
But in the Commons
there was no Thatcher-style warrior talk about days of destiny or
independence. Instead May’s chosen tone was soothing and
respectful, both to the EU and to British voters who support it. Her
audience was in the capitals of Europe, not the Commons chamber. She
sought a “deep and special” partnership with Europe. Her
peroration contained the word “together” no fewer than six times.
At times it was hard to realise that Britain is walking away, so
often did May praise the EU, wish it well and invoke its values.
There was very
practical domestic political reason for this emollience too. Despite
her wish for the country to come together on the issue, Britain is
still deeply divided over Europe. Nine months ago, 17.4 million
Britons voted to leave, while 16.1 million voted to remain. A YouGov
opinion poll this week suggested that views haven’t changed much.
Neither side of the arguments regrets the stance it took last year.
Remainers are beginning to accept that there’s no way back. But
May, unlike the newspapers that urge her forward and constantly try
to make her into a second Thatcher, does not choose to grind the
faces of the 48% who voted remain into the dust.
Leaving the EU is
“this generation’s chance to shape a brighter future for our
country”, said May. It offers “a chance to step back and ask
ourselves what kind of country we want to be”.
That sounds very
benign and consensual, as it is supposed to, until you realise that
“this generation” is in fact not a fixed thing. Britain is
divided not united across its generations, including Europe. In the
YouGov poll this week, 65% of young people aged 18-24 say it was
wrong to vote leave, against just 12% who think it was right. At the
other end of the age spectrum, the over-65s say the opposite, with
62% saying it was right to leave and 31% saying it was wrong.
So this isn’t
really “this generation’s chance”. In fact it’s the older
generation’s chance to break a relationship with Europe that the
younger generation wants to keep. Looking backwards has defeated
looking forwards – or has until the leave voters die out and,
perhaps, leave the new majority more pro-European. At the end of her
speech May invoked a misty-eyed vision of “a stronger, fairer,
better Britain – a Britain our children and grandchildren are proud
to call home”. The problem, though, is that leaving the EU isn’t
going to produce that kind of Britain. As the historian Anthony
Barnett put it: “Brexit is government of the old, by the old, for
the old.”
As she signed the
letter triggering Britain’s exit from the EU on Tuesday, May had
posed beneath a portrait of Sir Robert Walpole, often described as
Britain’s first prime minister. Eurosceptics think highly of
Walpole because he prioritised getting extremely rich over European
entanglements. In one of his most quoted remarks, Walpole boasted to
Queen Caroline in 1734 that “there are fifty thousand men slain
this year in Europe, and not one Englishman”.
What the
Eurosceptics always forget, though, is that Walpole served a king,
George II, who was ruler not just of Britain but of Hanover and was
therefore entangled in Europe whether he wanted to be or not. It was
always thus for this island. The Guardian’s striking front page
showed the British jigsaw piece removed from the European whole. But
real countries do not move. They stay where they are. Britain will be
part of Europe, one way or another, until the end of the world.
|
Brexit:
EU condemns May’s ‘blackmail’ over security cooperation
Prime
minister’s remarks in article 50 letter prompt reply that other
member states will not accept security collaboration as bargaining
chip
Anushka Asthana,
Daniel Boffey, Heather Stewart and Peter Walker
Wednesday 29 March
2017 21.42 BST Last modified on Thursday 30 March 2017 01.00 BST
Theresa May warned
European leaders that failure to reach a comprehensive Brexit
agreement will result in a weakening of cooperation on crime and
security, triggering accusations that her remarks amounted to
blackmail.
Senior figures in
Brussels complained about the prime minister’s remarks, while
critics in Westminster also piled in, arguing that the prime minister
had issued a “blatant threat” and was treating security as a
“bargaining chip” in negotiations.
The long-anticipated
article 50 letter, hand-delivered by Sir Tim Barrow, the UK’s EU
ambassador, to the European council president, Donald Tusk, stressed
that the British government’s prime desire was to maintain a “deep
and special partnership” with the EU27.
But the Conservative
leader also suggested that a final divorce agreement would need to
take in both economic and security cooperation and issued a clear
warning about the potential fallout if the talks failed.
“If, however, we
leave the European Union without an agreement, the default position
is that we would have to trade on World Trade Organisation terms. In
security terms, a failure to reach agreement would mean our
cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be
weakened,” she wrote.
The European
parliament’s Brexit coordinator, Guy Verhofstadt, responded that
MEPs would not accept any attempt by the UK to use its strength in
the military and intelligence fields as a bargaining chip,
underlining the complexities that the prime minister will face in
achieving a smooth exit from the EU.
“I tried to be a
gentleman towards a lady, so I didn’t even use or think about the
use of the word blackmail,” Verhofstadt said. “I think the
security of our citizens is far too important to start a trade-off of
one and the other. Both are absolutely necessary in the future
partnership without bargaining this one against the other.”
Gianni Pittella, the
leader of the Socialist bloc in the European parliament, said: “It
would be outrageous to play with people’s lives in these
negotiations. This has not been a good start by Theresa May. It feels
like blackmail, but security is a good for all our citizens and not a
bargaining chip. We still hope that Theresa May can get back on the
right track … This was not a smart move.”
The government will
follow the triggering of article 50 by publishing a white paper on
Thursday that will lay the foundations for a “great repeal bill”
designed to bring the body of EU legislation back into the British
system. Sources said the aim was to ensure that the same rules and
laws applied the day after the UK left the EU.
The prime minister’s
stark language in the letter contrasted with her conciliatory tone
when she told MPs that the article 50 divorce letter had been
delivered. May told MPs that her government would strive to ensure
that Britain remained a best friend and close ally to the rest of the
EU.
There was also a
frank admission about the negative impact of Brexit in the UK. “We
understand that there will be consequences for the UK of leaving the
EU. We know that we will lose influence over the rules that affect
the European economy. We know that UK companies that trade with the
EU will have to align with rules agreed by institutions of which we
are no longer a part, just as we do in other overseas markets. We
accept that,” she said.
The EU’s chief
Brexit negotiator, Guy Verhofstadt, told a news conference: ‘I
think the security of our citizens is far too important to start a
trade-off.’ Photograph: Yves Herman/Reuters
The prime minister
said she understood that Wednesday was “a day of celebration for
some and disappointment for others” – a point underlined as
passionate campaigners on either side of the debate rose after her
statement to put forward their arguments.
She was clear that,
in her eyes, there was now no way to stop Brexit, adding that her
government was acting on the “democratic will of the British
people”. She added: “This is an historic moment from which there
can be no turning back. Britain is leaving the European Union. We are
going to make our own decisions and our own laws. We are going to
take control of the things that matter most to us.”
In the letter, the
prime minister admitted that Britain faced a “momentous” task in
fully extricating itself from the EU by the spring of 2019, but
claimed it was feasible. However, her request to negotiate a
comprehensive trade agreement alongside withdrawal discussions was
soon knocked back by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel. “The
negotiations must first clarify how we will disentangle our
interlinked relationship” before talks about the future
relationship could begin, Merkel said in Berlin.
The European
commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, was more clearcut when he
said the UK’s decision to quit the block was a “choice they will
regret one day”.
Other leading
European figures struck a more emollient note. A sombre Tusk,
speaking shortly after receiving article 50, said: “We already miss
you. Thank you and goodbye.”
Amber Rudd, the home
secretary, insisted that “no threat” was being issued by the UK
and that trade and security talks were separate, but added that
security cooperation was a reality of EU membership and would need to
be negotiated after Brexit.
“If you look at
something like Europol, we are the largest contributor to Europol. So
if we left Europol, then we would take our information – this is in
the legislation – with us. The fact is, the European partners want
us to keep our information there, because we keep other European
countries safe as well,” Rudd said.
In response to the
claims of blackmail, and to Merkel’s comments about the timing of
talks, a government source said that this was the “start of a
negotiation” so it was no surprise that people were taking tough
positions.
Tim Farron, the Lib
Dem leader, said the hint that security issues could be wrapped
together with trade talks read like a “blatant threat” to
withdraw cooperation if the EU failed to offer a good enough trade
deal.
Yvette Cooper, the
Labour chair of parliament’s home affairs select committee, said it
would be “dangerous” for Britain to leave the EU without a
security agreement in place. “She should not be trying to use this
as a bargaining chip in the negotiations. This is not a threat to the
rest of Europe – it would be a serious act of self-harm.”
Lord Kirkhope, a
Conservative peer who used to be the party’s spokesman on justice
and home affairs in Brussels, argued that the exchange of
intelligence and security information within the EU was “critical”.
“We cannot allow there to be any gaps or delays. You cannot have
security as a bargaining chip,” he said, reasoning that the
government ought to prioritise the issue at the start of the talks.
If not, it could end up as a “casualty at the end”, he said. “The
problem with security is you can’t afford that.”
A government source
said the government was only going to be negotiating over security
issues linked to the EU, including Europol, extradition agreements,
and an EU-wide information alert system for wanted and suspected
criminals. Talks would not include anything linked to Britain’s
Nato membership, or longstanding relationships between intelligence
services, it was emphasised.
The Labour leader,
Jeremy Corbyn, responded by promising that the government would be
“held to account at every stage of the negotiations”. He told
MPs: “The British people made a decision to leave the European
Union, and Labour respects that decision. The next steps along this
journey are the most crucial, and if the prime minister is to unite
the country … The government needs to listen, consult and represent
the whole country, not just hardline Tory ideologues on her own
benches.” He promised to oppose any threats to turn Britain into a
“low-wage tax haven”.
Dominic Grieve MP, a
leading supporter of Open Britain and the chair of the intelligence
and security committee, said the row over security underlined the
need for May to secure a deal. “The prime minister’s letter shows
leaving the EU with no deal would not just hurt our economy, but also
our security, which relies on close cooperation with Europe.”
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário