On Dec. 6, when Europe’s attention was focused on the risk of a Polish-Hungarian veto against the EU budget and recovery plan at the upcoming European Council of Dec. 10-11, Clément Beaune, the French Secretary of State for Europe, insisted in an interview that the remaining 25 member states should go ahead with a recovery plan without the two Central European countries.

“Our stance is clear. We will sacrifice neither the recovery plan nor the rule of law.” Beaune said.

In the same interview, the French politician threatened the EU with a veto against any Brexit deal that would not sufficiently protect France’s interests and the interests of its fishermen.

“If the deal is not good and does not respect our interests, especially for fishermen, France could, as any other member state, oppose it with a veto.”

After 4.5 years of negotiations and several “last deadlines” to avoid a hard Brexit on Dec. 31, at the end of the current transition period, the European Parliament had indicated a deal would need to be struck on Sunday, Dec. 20, at the latest if it was to have time to approve it. No deal was in sight on Sunday evening, and ten days before the end of the transition period, we still did not know whether there is going to be a deal preserving free trade between the UK and the EU.

Fisherman, Nicolas Bishop, on the Boulogne sur Mer based trawler “Jeremy Florent II” prepares to raise fishing nets off the coast of northern France in Boulogne-sur-Mer, northern France, Thursday, Dec. 10, 2020. – AP Photo/Michel Spingler

The uncertainty alone is very damaging for the economy, and it is a massive failure for both the UK and the EU. The three main areas of divergence between the UK and the EU are:

• Fishing rights: Regaining control of British waters was a key argument of Brexiteers, and the UK is not ready to keep the current quota system in place in exchange for access to the Single Market, while the EU claims access of EU fishermen to UK waters should be guaranteed for ten years. Although some progress was made last week, positions remained far apart on Sunday evening.
• “Level playing field”: The EU wanted to be able to impose tariffs unilaterally if it considers in the future that the UK has gone too far away from its standards. Such a demand is motivated by the UK’s refusal to commit to adopting new EU standards in the future. Progress has been made on this subject, negotiators having agreed both the UK and the EU could impose tariffs, but only after having gone through an arbitration procedure.
• The Irish border: An agreement was reached on the implementation of last year’s Withdrawal Agreement after the UK threatened to vote in a new law that would allow its government to violate the Irish backstop clause of this international treaty if required in the future. The UK argues that it may need to so for the sake of territorial unity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

On Sunday evening, fishing rights remained the main obstacle to an agreement being finalized. However, France still did not seem ready to back down on its demands, which are totally unacceptable from a British perspective. While fishing is a very tiny part of the economy on both sides of the Channel (far below 1 percent of GDP), the EU has made an agreement on fishing a precondition for a free trade agreement.

On Dec. 13, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had warned that the issue of fishing was putting at risk the prospect of a post-Brexit trade deal.

According to The Telegraph, President Emmanuel Macron expects Prime Minister Boris Johnson to cave in and accept the EU’s conditions after the Jan. 1 deadline because the troubles caused by a hard Brexit will be hugely unpopular. Whether or not this is a ‘massive miscalculation’ as The Telegraph claims, it is a dangerous game for the whole EU and something France ought to discuss with other EU countries first.

Emmanuel Macron reportedly believes that the UK will cave and give in to France’s demands on fishing rights to avoid a hard Brexit.  -AP Images

It is worth noting that a likely reason why the implementation of the Irish backstop had to be renegotiated with the British was that President Macron once talked at a press conference of the Irish “backstop” as a tool that would be used in future trade negotiations to force the UK to keep its waters open.

In 2017, Macron overtly warned that he wanted the EU to have a very tough approach in trade negotiations with the UK. Indeed, Macron then explained, a good deal for the UK “will be too big an incentive for others to leave”.

“People were lied to, and their choice is impossible to implement,” Macron also said in 2019.

France’s punitive and selfish approach to Brexit negotiations is thus jeopardizing profits made by the whole EU in its trade with the UK. The EU-27’s trade surplus with the UK was almost €90 billion in 2019, so the EU as a whole has more to lose than the UK in case no trade agreement is finalized at the end of the transition period.

Although Germany is by far the biggest trade partner for most Central European countries, the UK is important too. It is, for example, Poland’s second-largest export market with a 7 percent share, and Poland has a trade surplus with the UK in both goods and services. Central European countries also have an interest in a deal being struck between the UK and the EU to guarantee the future status of their nationals working in significant numbers in the UK.

With the recession already caused by the coronavirus pandemic, the last thing Europeans needed this year was the ongoing uncertainty over future trade relations with the UK. A hard Brexit on Dec. 31 due to Macron focusing on French interests and his will to deter others from exiting the bloc would be even worse.

Source: https://rmx.news/article/commentary/france-putting-the-eu-at-risk-of-hard-brexit-for-fishing-rights-central-europe-wont-benefit-from

The post France putting EU at risk of hard Brexit for fishing rights Central Europe won’t benefit from first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Today is March 29th, the day there was to be a hard British exit from the European Union if the Parliament couldn’t agree to flawed arrangement Prime Minister May brought up again. This was the third time she’d tried to get the deal passed.   But it failed, again. Most voted against it because it favored ongoing interference with Britain’s sovereignty and would have been hugely expensive.

Prime Minister’s Theresa May’s tenure is in doubt.   She’d offered to resign if they were to agree to the terms offered.   But that didn’t happen. Now there will apparently be another year of delay, and the UK will remain stuck in the through upcoming EU parliament elections, and representatives will hold their seats in the EU governing body and try to represent British interests. Unless, that is, the EU itself forces a “hard Brexit,” however unlikely.   According to a prominent headline in the UK, “Brexit now faces death, or a delay of years.”

Venezuela continues in the death throes of socialist catastrophe.   The dictator Maduro hangs on with the support of most of the military.   He’s also backed by Russia, China and Iran, all of whom have considerable financial (or military) interests tied to Maduro’s survival. According to reports, Russia sent a plane-load of a couple hundred troops this week, presumably to help prop up Maduro. U. S. military experts say that Russia wants a military base in Venezuela.

The Associated Press ran a story just today, illustrating how daily life there is like a flashback to the Middle Ages.   There is no electrical power. Even tap water has dried up, and the water people find to carry home is not sanitary.

 The wealthy have checked into luxury hotels, where large generators supply power and food is available at in-house restaurants. But the masses scour garbage and go out to find a source of foul water.   Just another day in socialist Utopia.

The Vatican is issuing new guidelines for dealing with the unspeakable criminal acts of its priesthood. They’re getting it all figured out so as to be blameless, to the point of creating an atmosphere where children are safe from the kind of abuse they’ve suffered by the unknown thousands over decades. Maybe they shouldn’t have hired a bunch of limp-wristed weirdos as priests.   This stuff is too sick for discussion here.   You can find it all if you need additional details.

Everyone should know there are more than temporal legal consequences for breaking any one of the Ten Commandments. One that has been trampled routinely is the one that says, “Thou shalt not bear false witness.”   Some want to make it broad enough to include any and all departures from the truth. But it’s more specific than that. Bearing false witness indicates claims of having seen something happen, or not.  For over two years we’ve been drowning in a sea of claims made by (formerly) esteemed people who’ve held some of the highest offices in the land.   They’ve pounded the narrative, egged on with prissy sobriety by several mainstream newsmen. They’ve either contributed to or actually written articles and op/eds accusing the current President of being an “agent of the Kremlin.”   He’s been called “Putin’s puppet,” and declared obviously guilty of treason by a cadre of former intelligence and law enforcement officials.

And then the dam broke. Now the purveyors of these ominous claims spend all their time trying to justify their accusations, suspicions and the vast deception they’ve caused.   But maybe, they hope, just maybe they’ll turn out to have been right all along! They’ll continue investigating with vigor and get back to us as soon as they find the elusive proof not turned up by one of the most compromised group of lawyers and prosecutors ever assembled.   Admitting defeat and dealing with reality is not the strong suit of those bound and determined to produce an outcome to which they’ve dedicated their entire identities.

Now it’s time for a Proverb or two.   Chapter 24, verse 15 says, “Do not lie in wait, O wicked man, against the dwelling of the righteous; do not plunder his resting place; For a righteous man may fall seven times, and rise again.   But the wicked shall fall by calamity.”

Then there’s the one we must heed right now in verse 17, “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls. And do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles.”   But then there is this a little later in the same chapter, verse 25, “But those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, and a good blessing will come upon them.”

We’ll all do our best to walk that fine line as we watch the information pour forth against those who have deceived many of earth’s inhabitants, and try not to enjoy it overmuch. Have a great Sabbath.

Mark

Source: http://www.intercontinentalcog.org/fridayupdates.php

The post Weekly Update by Mark Armstrong – 29 March 2019 first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

It is Friday afternoon and as we’ve learned, big news often drops sometime in the evening.   There will probably be something that should have been addressed in the update, but was intentionally kept until the evening for whatever strategic reason. That may be the case, but there’s no shortage of matters that deserve attention.   Sometimes we wish there were. We’ll probably hear that they’ve REALLY got Trump, for sure this time.   That’ll probably be it.

You may remember the information relayed a couple of weeks ago, about the man behind the curtain in EU leadership.   His name is Martin Selmayer, as was relayed in our last monthly letter.   An article this week suggests that the Brexit “formula,” rejected by the British Parliament, was written in Berlin!   No wonder the thing left all manner of European rules in place.   No wonder that Prime Minister Theresa May was unable to renegotiate, even around the margins, with European leaders.   They couldn’t change the terms of the agreement anyway.   The terms were apparently laid out behind the scenes by someone with authority.

There’s no way we can tell you how this comes out.   The possibility of a “hard Brexit” at the end of this month still exists.   If Britain pulls the plug with no agreements in place, chances are the EU will make it as difficult as possible.   That’s the concern, that Britain will suffer in trade, travel and that English citizens living and working in Europe will find things they took for granted impossible. The British Parliament is due to hold another vote on the Brexit plan it already shot down, apparently with minor changes that do nothing to address the big problems that led to its demise last time.  There’s also the possibility of another delay.   We’ll see.

 Phony “hate crimes” are still being manufactured regularly.   Nobody seems to learn their lesson.   There are at least TWO more this week alone.   Mainstream outlets report these incidents (or false reports) soberly, even when they’re wildly suspicious. It just goes to show you the media can no longer be relied upon for accurate reporting, and will undoubtedly mislead the public with their analysis.   The most irritating aspect of this is that there apparently is a sizable audience for Fake News. While we turn it off in disgust, there are at least a couple million who hang on every word.   They probably even stay put for the commercials!

You’re doubtless aware that recent records are being shattered for the sheer numbers walking into the United States.   Since the vast majority are now “other than Mexicans,” they can’t be deported back across the border thanks to laws that congress thinks are just fine. Detention centers are bursting at the seams and thousands of people are being released into society. There’s no hope for the situation unless it’s made nearly impossible by some kind of barrier.   Meanwhile, the United States is an economic playground for whoever is willing to cough up enough cash for the smugglers.

The good news this week, if it actually sticks, is that the President is going to require universities to allow FREE SPEECH on their campuses if they expect to continue receiving Federal funding.   It’s unbelievable that universities were the one’s that went to wild extremes to claim their right to free speech.   Apparently it was only socialist/communist/anti-American speech they wanted to promote. Since radical socialist dogma has taken hold, they’ve allowed conservative speakers to be verbally and physically threatened.   They’ve promoted “safe-places” and declared themselves “sanctuaries” from everything that might “offend” socialist snow-flakes.

The other thing that will undoubtedly bring a wave of lawsuits and feigned outrage on your favorite mainstream outlet, is that the President says Planned Parenthood is going to have to physically separate facilities that render all those benign tests and treatments from those that provide the “services” for which they are best known.

Not to reiterate so much that has come before, but have you noticed that famous people and politicians swap positions and arguments at the drop of a hat?   It used to be that the anti-American contingent was anti-war at all costs, and you’ve heard the arguments that began in the 60’s.   Lately everyone’s hair catches fire at any hint of bringing our troops home from Syria.   Or Afghanistan. They say in all seriousness that it’s proof the President has lost his mind.   Question the continued necessity of NATO, now some 23 nations that predominantly rely on the U. S. for their defense?   Many have not lived up to their financial obligations.   Maybe that never occurred to anybody who’s called upon to call the President crazy, but it might be that he’s playing to another audience for strategic reasons.   Same goes for statements regarding North Korea and Kim Jong-un.   And for that matter, Russia! These wretched TV panels, sometimes eight or more at a time, want to diagram every sentence so they can claim, “He lied again!”   They’re not on the up and up, and we know it.

One more thing. The Royal Palace has denied in the strongest terms the report last week that Prince Harry and Meghan intend to raise their baby as “gender-neutral.”   Hard to know what’s gone on behind the scenes.   We hope it was more of the disinformation to which we’ve become accustomed.

Mark

PS: We just received copies of the new TCW.   It’s being mailed out directly from the (out of state) printer and should be in your mailbox presently.   Our thanks go out to all who make it possible for us to publish that magazine and all the other material that we continue to supply to a public that rarely encounters truth.

Source: http://www.intercontinentalcog.org/fridayupdates.php

The post Weekly Update by Mark Armstrong – 8 March 2019 first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post France triggers ‘hard Brexit’ plan as no-deal exit is more and more likely first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Uncertainty reigns in Britain. Yesterday, Prime Minister Theresa May announced the details of her proposed withdrawal agreement to take Britain out of the European Union (EU). Her plan sparked resignations from the government and catalyzed a bid to topple May as leader of the Conservative Party. Can May remain in office and secure parliamentary approval of her negotiated deal, or will Britain will be plunged into yet more confusion, uncertainty, and instability?

May’s withdrawal agreement provides for Britain to exit the EU on March 29, 2019. But it does not offer a clean break. Instead, a twenty-one-month “transition period” will come into effect, during which European law will still apply to Britain even though London will have no say on the making of those rules. The purpose of the transition period is to buy time for a comprehensive future relationship to be agreed between the two sides, which will settle the complex questions of how Britain will participate in the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union over the long-term.

Critics charge that the terms of the transition period are tantamount to making Britain a “vassal state” of the EU. For them, it is Brexit in name only: their country will remain subject to the EU’s jurisdiction and will lack the full authority of a truly sovereign state, such as the power to conclude independent trade deals. Worse still, a so-called “backstop” arrangement means that Britain will be indefinitely tied to EU rules and regulations unless a formula can be found to prevent the reemergence of a hard border on the island of Ireland.

To some, these flaws in the withdrawal agreement are enough to make it dead on arrival. But May insists (not without good reason) that this is the only viable way forward. She rightly argues that none of her detractors have articulated a recipe for extricating Britain from the EU—which the British people voted for in June 2016—while simultaneously avoiding the doomsday scenario of crashing out of the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union in an abrupt, unplanned, and disorderly fashion. Sober minds in the business community agree: a phased, managed approach is the best available option.

May has raised the specter of two unpalatable alternatives to try and win over the skeptics: Brexit with no deal, or no Brexit whatsoever. Most observers agree that the former option, whereby Britain would exit the EU in unceremonious fashion without any political or economic agreement to soften the blow, is the worst possible outcome for the British economy. Indeed, the prospect is so alarming that any withdrawal agreement looks good in comparison. But “hard Brexit” is exactly what will happen on March 29, 2019, unless a withdrawal agreement is accepted, or Britain and the EU mutually agree to extend negotiations. The clock is ticking, and it’s attached to a time-bomb.

It is much less clear whether “no Brexit” is a realistic option at this point. Many people, especially those who opposed Brexit in the first place, certainly hope that there is still an opportunity to call the whole thing off. But it is an open question whether London has the authority to cancel the Brexit process unilaterally. The only means to finding clarity on this issue would be a legal decision from the European Court of Justice, which the British government is currently trying to forestall, or a unanimous political commitment from the EU’s member states, which German chancellor Angela Merkel seemed yesterday to pour cold water on.

May herself has repeatedly said that she has no intention of trying to halt Brexit. More likely than not, she raised the prospect of “no Brexit” simply to rally wavering Brexiteers behind her: if pro-Brexit MPs believe that foreign and domestic forces might conspire to undermine the June 2016 referendum result to leave the EU, it could be enough to persuade them to back May’s deal as an imperfect step in the right direction. On the other hand, if Brexit hardliners do not believe that halting or slowing down Brexit is a credible threat, they might instead be tempted to call May’s bluff by voting down her compromise measure and accepting the default hard Brexit scenario that they openly prefer to so-called “vassalage.”

Herein lies the problem for Britain’s beleaguered Prime Minister: there is simply no consensus within Britain over what the withdrawal agreement or Britain’s future relationship with the EU should look like. This makes it all but impossible for her—or, indeed, any conceivable successor—to actually undertake the necessary business of taking Britain out of the EU in an orderly fashion.

Even if May could count on the support of every single Member of Parliament from her own Conservative Party, she would still lack an overall majority in the House of Commons. This is because May heads a minority government that relies on the hard-line Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) from Northern Ireland to stay in power. The DUP looks set to oppose May’s deal when it comes up for a vote in Parliament. Making matters worse, around fifty of May’s own Conservative backbenchers have indicated their opposition to the deal, including former ministers such as Boris Johnson, David Davis, Iain Duncan Smith, Steve Baker, and Dominic Raab. Some are even calling for her removal as Prime Minister.

This fractured parliamentary landscape leaves May with an arithmetic problem. Even if she can face down challengers to her premiership, where can she find the votes to pass her withdrawal agreement? She will receive no support from the Scottish Nationalists, who hold thirty-five seats at Westminster. Nor can May count on the support of the Conservatives’ erstwhile coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, who oppose Brexit altogether. The Welsh nationalists, Plaid Cymru, will also oppose May’s deal, as will the Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas.

This leaves just the Labour Party. Even though May’s withdrawal agreement is very close to what Labour previously campaigned on—that is, continued access to the EU’s Single Market and participation in the Customs Union, at least for the time being—Labour will most likely oppose the deal in hopes of forcing a political crisis and a subsequent General Election. When May called a snap election last year, Labour’s left-wing leader Jeremy Corbyn surpassed all expectations by increasing his haul of Labour MPs and robbing May of her parliamentary majority. Corbyn smells blood and believes that he would enter Downing Street if a new election were to be called now.

The post May’s Brexit Nightmare first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.