Britain leaves E.U. finally and permanently. (PM May's letter)

[LateForLunch]

Dear President Tusk,

On 23 June last year, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. As I have said before, that decision was no rejection of the values we share as fellow Europeans. Nor was it an attempt to do harm to the European Union or any of the remaining member states.
On the contrary, the United Kingdom wants the European Union to succeed and prosper. Instead, the referendum was a vote to restore, as we see it, our national self-determination. We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe - and we want to remain committed partners and allies to our friends across the continent.

Earlier this month, the United Kingdom Parliament confirmed the result of the referendum by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. The Bill was passed by Parliament on 13 March and it received Royal Assent from Her Majesty The Queen and became an Act of Parliament on 16 March.

Today, therefore, I am writing to give effect to the democratic decision of the people of the United Kingdom. I hereby notify the European Council in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union. In addition, in accordance with the same Article 50(2) as applied by Article 106a of the Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, I hereby notify the European Council of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Atomic Energy Community. References in this letter to the European Union should therefore be taken to include a reference to the European Atomic Energy Community.

This letter sets out the approach of Her Majesty’s Government to the discussions we will have about the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union and about the deep and special partnership we hope to enjoy – as your closest friend and neighbour – with the European Union once we leave. We believe that these objectives are in the interests not only of the United Kingdom but of the European Union and the wider world too.

 It is in the best interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union that we should use the forthcoming process to deliver these objectives in a fair and orderly manner, and with as little disruption as possible on each side. We want to make sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and is capable of projecting its values, leading in the world, and defending itself from security threats. We want the United Kingdom, through a new deep and special partnership with a strong European Union, to play its full part in achieving these goals. We therefore believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the European Union.

The Government wants to approach our discussions with ambition, giving citizens and businesses in the United Kingdom and the European Union – and indeed from third countries around the world – as much certainty as possible, as early as possible.

I would like to propose some principles that may help to shape our coming discussions, but before I do so, I should update you on the process we will be undertaking at home, in the United Kingdom.

The process in the United Kingdom

As I have announced already, the Government will bring forward legislation that will repeal the Act of Parliament – the European Communities Act 1972 – that gives effect to EU law in our country. This legislation will, wherever practical and appropriate, in effect convert the body of existing European Union law (the “acquis”) into UK law. This means there will be certainty for UK citizens and for anybody from the European Union who does business in the United Kingdom. The Government will consult on how we design and implement this legislation, and we will publish a White Paper tomorrow. We also intend to bring forward several other pieces of legislation that address specific issues relating to our departure from the European Union, also with a view to ensuring continuity and certainty, in particular for businesses. We will of course continue to fulfill our responsibilities as a member state while we remain a member of the European Union, and the legislation we propose will not come into effect until we leave.

From the start and throughout the discussions, we will negotiate as one United Kingdom, taking due account of the specific interests of every nation and region of the UK as we do so. When it comes to the return of powers back to the United Kingdom, we will consult fully on which powers should reside in Westminster and which should be devolved Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it is the expectation of the Government that the outcome of this process will to be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved administration.

Negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union

The United Kingdom wants to agree with the European Union a deep and special partnership that takes in both economic and security cooperation. To achieve this, we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU.
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. In this kind of scenario, both the United Kingdom and the European Union would of course cope with the change, but it is not the outcome that either side should seek. We must therefore work hard to avoid that outcome.

It is for these reasons that we want to be able to agree a deep and special partnership, taking in both economic and security cooperation, but it is also because we want to play our part in making sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats. And we want the United Kingdom to play its full part in realising that vision for our continent.

Proposed principles for our discussions

Looking ahead to the discussions which we will soon begin, I would like to suggest some principles that we might agree to help make sure that the process is as smooth and successful as possible.
i. We should engage with one another constructively and respectfully, in a spirit of sincere cooperation

Since I became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom I have listened carefully to you, to my fellow EU Heads of Government and the Presidents of the European Commission and Parliament. That is why the United Kingdom does not seek membership of the single market: we understand and respect your position that the four freedoms of the single market are indivisible and there can be no “cherry picking”. We also 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 also know that UK companies will, as they trade within the EU, have to align with rules agreed by institutions of which we are no longer a part – just as UK companies do in other overseas markets.


ii. We should always put our citizens first

There is obvious complexity in the discussions we are about to undertake, but we should remember that at the heart of our talks are the interests of all our citizens. There are, for example, many citizens of the remaining member states living in the United Kingdom, and UK citizens living elsewhere in the European Union, and we should aim to strike an early agreement about their rights.

iii. We should work towards securing a comprehensive agreement

We want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation. We will need to discuss how we determine a fair settlement of the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, in accordance with the law and in the spirit of the United Kingdom’s continuing partnership with the EU. But we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU.

  iv. We should work together to minimise disruption and give as much certainty as possible

Investors, businesses and citizens in both the UK and across the remaining 27 member states – and those from third countries around the world – want to be able to plan. In order to avoid any cliff-edge as we move from our current relationship to our future partnership, people and businesses in both the UK and the EU would benefit from implementation periods to adjust in a smooth and orderly way to new arrangements. It would help both sides to minimise unnecessary disruption if we agree this principle early in the process.

v. In particular, we must pay attention to the UK’s unique relationship with the Republic of Ireland and the importance of the peace process in Northern Ireland

The Republic of Ireland is the only EU member state with a land border with the United Kingdom. We want to avoid a return to a hard border between our two countries, to be able to maintain the Common Travel Area between us, and to make sure that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU does not harm the Republic of Ireland. We also have an important responsibility to make sure that nothing is done to jeopardise the peace process in Northern Ireland, and to continue to uphold the Belfast Agreement.

vi. We should begin technical talks on detailed policy areas as soon as possible, but we should prioritise the biggest challenges

Agreeing a high-level approach to the issues arising from our withdrawal will of course be an early priority. But we also propose a bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. This should be of greater scope and ambition than any such agreement before it so that it covers sectors crucial to our linked economies such as financial services and network industries. This will require detailed technical talks, but as the UK is an existing EU member state, both sides have regulatory frameworks and standards that already match. We should therefore prioritise how we manage the evolution of our regulatory frameworks to maintain a fair and open trading environment, and how we resolve disputes. On the scope of the partnership between us – on both economic and security matters – my officials will put forward detailed proposals for deep, broad and dynamic cooperation.

vii. We should continue to work together to advance and protect our shared European values

Perhaps now more than ever, the world needs the liberal, democratic values of Europe. We want to play our part to ensure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats.

The task before us

As I have said, the Government of the United Kingdom wants to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation. At a time when the growth of global trade is slowing and there are signs that protectionist instincts are on the rise in many parts of the world, Europe has a responsibility to stand up for free trade in the interest of all our citizens. Likewise, Europe’s security is more fragile today than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Weakening our cooperation for the prosperity and protection of our citizens would be a costly mistake. The United Kingdom’s objectives for our future partnership remain those set out in my Lancaster House speech of 17 January and the subsequent White Paper published on 2 February.


We recognize that it will be a challenge to reach such a comprehensive agreement within the two-year period set out for withdrawal discussions in the Treaty. But we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU. We start from a unique position in these discussions – close regulatory alignment, trust in one another’s institutions, and a spirit of cooperation stretching back decades. It is for these reasons, and because the future partnership between the UK and the EU is of such importance to both sides, that I am sure it can be agreed in the time period set out by the Treaty.


The task before us is momentous but it should not be beyond us. After all, the institutions and the leaders of the European Union have succeeded in bringing together a continent blighted by war into a union of peaceful nations, and supported the transition of dictatorships to democracy. Together, I know we are capable of reaching an agreement about the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, while establishing a deep and special partnership that contributes towards the prosperity, security and global power of our continent.


Yours sincerely,
Theresa May

[truth_seeker]

When does the UK stop sending money to Brussels?

[driftdiver]

The EU is about control and subjugation.    The dictator wannabees in Brussels will not take this kindly.

[XenaLee]

A novel concept to the one-world-order globalists, eh?  One quite contrary to their agenda, in fact.

ii. We should always put our citizens first

[LateForLunch]

When does the UK stop sending money to Brussels?

That's a good question and the answer seems to hinge on how England chooses to be regarded economically as a member of the "single market", which the EU has threatened to deny them if they don't pay in at least 12 to 14 billion pounds into the EU economy.

But a better question, and one that is surely on the minds and discussion panels for Terea May's government is how to minimize the exit's effect on the British GDP (since the effect upon that will be considerably greater than the amount it will or will not pay into the EU directly).

Most likely the British government will simply stop paying into projects that do not have an immediate benefit to England either short, intermediate or long term. Then gradually withdraw funding from everything else.

It will have to negotiate with the member nations in regard to which projects it stops funding.

There has been some general discussion in economic circles of how England may do an end run around any efforts by the EU to pressure them into holding off on economic withdrawal from the single market structure, by doing more deals with Asian market and other emerging markets which are functional in their sphere.

That last move would tend to strengthen both England and the other nations in the emerging market organizations but would also tend to enrage the EU. So likely Britain will keep that last move as a bargaining chip and last resort if the EU gets high-handed and tries to enact more punitive measures designed to punish Britain.

It was notable that among the first acts of president Trump was to meet with Teresa May and solidify plans to undo the efforts of the Eightball Obama to damage U.S./ British trade relations and to put them back on track for a solid future of mutual dealing.

Britain has more of its economy invested in the U.S. than any other nation except Holland.

[LateForLunch]

A novel concept to the one-world-order globalists, eh?  One quite contrary to their agenda, in fact.

Yep! I noticed that one too, Cat Lady! It seemed sort of odd that this would have to be pointed out  since that is one of the founding principles of (small "d") democratic nations.  The fact that PM May included it in her letter was possibly both to remind the EU radical socialist despots that she was empowered by the entire population of Britain and to reassure the citizens of England that she "got the message" in the election (recovering British sovereignty from Brussels was one of the highest motivations for the pro exit voters).

The letter's historical significance might have also been a motivation for her to include that since it will become part of her legacy as PM. It also could serve as immunization against accusations that she is acting as some sort of fascist in defiance of principles of democracy.  PM May has often been characterized as such by her political adversaries on the far left.

It's nothing less than astonishing how often the accusations of "fascism" emerge from the lips and writings of leftists who are, if nothing else hopelessly dedicated to placing the power of the State and of oligarchic governments far above those of the People.

[truth_seeker]

The EU started as the EEC in 1957 with The Treaty of Rome, to lower/reduce economic barriers to free trade between the 6 founding members.

I was notified that these nations did NOT do so with democratic votes from their citizens, but by treaty ratification by their governments.

The discussion about how the UK handles this, should be at least equaled with discussion about what the EU intends to do, to stop bleeding major members.

[LateForLunch]

The EU started as the EEC in 1957 with The Treaty of Rome, to lower/reduce economic barriers to free trade between the 6 founding members.

I was notified that these nations did NOT do so with democratic votes from their citizens, but by treaty ratification by their governments.

The discussion about how the UK handles this, should be at least equaled with discussion about what the EU intends to do, to stop bleeding major members.

Wow. I never knew that. Suggests that this might have been partially the inspiration for the Eightball Obama to bypass the People and run amok all over the place with his endless ultra vires executive actions making treaties and acting by fiat without Congressional consent. Thanks for posting that!!

The fundamental problem economically for the EU is mostly the southern member nations (Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc.) all of whom are near or at the very brink of total economic collapse.

Britain very wisely saw the cliff edge coming and decided enough was enough and resoundingly sent a message to the political class that they no longer trusted them. The defeats of numerous pro EU politicians at every level was a popular uprising of massive proportions.

Since the EU has never addressed the economic disaster looming on the horizon for so many of its member states, there is little to suggest that it will survive much longer.

The overreach of the EU is book and probably can be most easily traced by the decline of the euro currency which is now at virtual parity with the USD (only 0.08% value difference).

The whole reason populations put up with EU oligarchic excess was that Brussels promised to make Europe as strong an economic entity as the United States. They sold the idea of the EU as a way for Europeans to have as strong a trade organization as the United States and to move forward into the 21st century as a major player united in the global marketplace.

The dissatisfaction with the EU's performance seemed to directly follow the decline of the euro currency and reached it's peak at the same time the euro's value reached its nadir.

The exit of Britain reflects the general trend of populations to disregard what leftist politicians say about reality and instead to react to reality itself. In the case of Britain, they saw no realistic hope that the best interests of England would ever be protected or pursued as long as the leftist oligarchs in Brussels called the shots.
 
http://www.x-rates.com/graph/?from=USD&to=EUR&amount=1

[truth_seeker]

The fundamental problem economically for the EU is mostly the southern member nations (Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc.) all of whom are near or at the very brink of total economic collapse.

Your fundamental problem was noted from the very start. Only Italy was among the 6 founding members (Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Nederland, Luxemburg).

It was argued for years to not admit poor nations from the south. That has turned out to be prophetic.

The fundamental problem the world over, including the US, is politicians that promise benefits which the economies can NOT ultimately afford. (see Obamacare, Social Security/Disability/college loans/public sector pensions etc.)

First schemes of borrowing today to pay, and then to repay in the future--eventually fail; see Greece.

The US is more similar than different, but merely not quite so far along the timeline to harsh reckoning.

[geronl]

A novel concept to the one-world-order globalists, eh?  One quite contrary to their agenda, in fact.

The radical concept of national sovereignty

[geronl]

The EU started as the EEC in 1957 with The Treaty of Rome, to lower/reduce economic barriers to free trade between the 6 founding members.

I was notified that these nations did NOT do so with democratic votes from their citizens, but by treaty ratification by their governments.

I've recently seen someone say the treaty was actually blank paper, they agreed to something not even written yet.

[truth_seeker]

I've recently seen someone say the treaty was actually blank paper, they agreed to something not even written yet.

I saw that, too. But it has operated for 60 years. The photo of the signing ceremony was just a photo. The copies of the treaty in the photo ceremony may well have been blanks.

Rest assured the real documents were indeed signed, however.