Must the Brexit deal be renegotiated?
The British House of Commons will vote today on Prime Minister Theresa May's request for more time to renegotiate the Brexit agreement with the EU. EU Council President Donald Tusk had asked for concrete proposals from London in a bid to overcome the blockade. Commentators are convinced that the worst can yet be avoided.
There could be method in the madness
An orderly Brexit is still a possibility because all sides have something to lose in a no-deal scenario, political commentator Melanie Sully writes in the Wiener Zeitung:
“The Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party does not want a referendum on a united Ireland as a consequence of a no-deal Brexit. The radical Tories want Brexit and a trade agreement that will only be possible after the Brexit. Labour is looking for a way out of the crisis without losing face, because a rejection of Brexit could be viewed negatively in working-class constituencies. ... A Brexit agreement would be a way out of the lose-lose situation. The EU doesn't want a no-deal Brexit and has put a lot of brain work into getting an agreement. Now the goal is to come up with a document that a majority in the House of Commons can go along with. For that it won't be necessary to sacrifice the EU's sacrosanct basic principles.”
Limit the damage to citizens
From now on May and the parliament must do their utmost to limit the damage, Daily Sabah writes:
“Whatever happens in the two weeks before May comes back to the Parliament with either a new deal or no deal at all, it is clear that Brexit will continue to be a sign of uncertainty for both the EU and the U.K. The role for responsible politicians at this point is to minimize the lasting damage to the lives of those impacted by it and allow people to get on with their lives.”
Time to draw the line
May's gambling with deadlines is irresponsible, complains tagesschau.de:
“She's already weakening her country's economy, driving entrepreneurs crazy and international companies to move to other locations and markets. A hard Brexit would be catastrophic of the British in almost every area. ... Too much is at stake here for last-minute gambles. May must draw a line under the negotiations and confront the House of Commons with the truth instead of constantly repeating her empty promises. If May doesn't want to, then the parliament must force her to - before it's too late and further damage is incurred.”
May must sacrifice herself or her country
Labour leader Corbyn had offered to secure a majority in parliament for a Brexit deal provided Britain remained in the customs union. May faces a dilemma, Marius Chivu writes in his blog for Adevarul:
“The option of a soft Brexit with the help of the Labour MPs poses a major existential problem for May's government. The loss of the conservative majority would once more open the debate about forcing May to step down. ... A hard Brexit, by contrast, would ensure the survival of May's current government with the help of the Conservatives. ... So the British prime minister faces a difficult choice: either she must act responsibly and end her own leadership by opting for a soft Brexit with the help of the Labour MPs or she must retain the majority so as to oversee the disaster of a hard Brexit.”
France can least afford no-deal Brexit
In the interests of his country French President Emmanuel Macron should adopt a more conciliatory tone vis-à-vis London on Brexit, The Spectator advises:
“France stands to forfeit £2.6bn (€3bn) of exports in 2019 in the event of post Brexit disruption, making it the third worst affected EU nation after Germany and Holland, according to a recent report by French-based credit insurer Euler Hermes. Brexit could also affect France's largest trade surplus in goods with any single country, Britain. ... With the French economy slowing dramatically, Macron could choose to promote a conciliatory path in the Brexit negotiations that would benefit both his own country and that of his great-grandfather.”