The European Parliament has ratified the post-Brexit trade agreement

The European Parliament has ratified the post-Brexit trade agreement, which has been provisionally applied since January. It can now fully enter into force on May 1. The attention shifts to some major loose ends.

The European Parliament has approved the EU-U.K. Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), setting out a framework for the U.K. and EU’s future relationship, with an overwhelming majority.

MEPs’ consent means that the agreement, which has been provisionally applied since January, can fully enter into force on May 1. Here are five big issues that still need to be solved:

A deal was struck with U.K. hard border between Gibraltar & Spain | Cristina Quicler/AFP via Getty Images

Governing the deal

The TCA foresees the creation of a complex governance structure, that only now the deal is ratified can be put in place. An EU-U.K. Joint Partnership Council will sit at the top, aimed at overseeing its implementation at the political level and creating a forum for both sides to iron out differences. The U.K.’s David Frost and European Commission Vice President Maroš Šefčovič will take the lead on each side.

There will also be a Trade Partnership Committee, which will receive input from 10 specialized trade committees looking at issues such as trade in goods, technical barriers to trade, rules of origin and intellectual property.

Working in parallel there will be eight committees, specialized in policy areas including energy, aviation safety, social security coordination, fisheries and law enforcement.

The TCA allows for the British and European parliaments to establish a Parliamentary Partnership Assembly consisting of lawmakers from the two institutions. The assembly may seek information from the Partnership Council and make recommendations on the implementation of the agreement.

Border checks

Brussels and London are continuing to hold talks to solve their dispute over Northern Ireland, following the U.K.’s unilateral decision to postpone the introduction of new checks on food, parcels and pets between the region and Britain — a move interpreted by the EU as a breach of the Northern Ireland protocol.

Both sides have been working intensively since Easter and identified up to 27 areas of divergence on which they are trying to find common ground.

Commission negotiators have offered the removal of inspections for food entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain if the U.K. aligns with EU standards. But that has been rejected by London, which continues to push for checks proportionate to the risks identified, arguing there are precedents in agreements signed between the EU and other third countries.

João Vale de Almeida, head of the EU’s delegation to the U.K., insists the Northern Ireland protocol is the solution to the problems created by Brexit, rather than the source of the tension. But some have blamed the political fight over the protocol for rising street violence in Northern Ireland, with unionist politicians in the region calling on Boris Johnson to scrap it.

Business groups are pushing for an agreement that helps alleviate trade disruption. “The U.K. and the EU must now get back around the table and continue talks so they can build upon the arrangements set out in the TCA to deliver long-term improvements to the flow of trade between them,” said Hannah Essex, co-executive director of the British Chamber of Commerce.

Diplomatic status

Among the most irritating pending issues for the Commission is the U.K.’s decision not to grant full diplomatic status to the EU’s delegation in London and its staff.

The lack of such status has so far deprived Vale de Almeida and his team of diplomatic immunity — which guarantees they cannot be arrested, detained and interrogated by the U.K. government.

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) argues the Vienna Convention, which regulates the issue, applies to states only, and not to international organizations such as the EU. According to the department, granting diplomatic status could lead to similar demands from a host of international organizations.

But the Commission argues the EU is more than an international organization since it has the right to represent member countries in a wide range of policy areas.

Brussels also points out that the U.K. signed an agreement in 2010 granting EU diplomats diplomatic “privileges and immunities” and that 142 other countries where the EU has delegations have granted diplomatic status to the bloc’s ambassadors.

The FCDO’s refusal has meant Vale de Almeida has not yet been able to present his credentials to the queen like other heads of embassies. As a result of the U.K.’s decision, European Council President Charles Michel canceled a meeting in January with the head of the U.K. Mission to the EU, Lindsay Croisdale-Appleby.

On Monday, Almeida said he is “confident” that both sides will manage to find a solution “in line with international practise.” U.K. officials say they are also confident of a resolution.

Gibraltar treaty

If there weren’t enough open negotiations, here’s another.

As 2020 drew to a close, Spain and the U.K. struck an 11th-hour deal to avoid a hard border between Gibraltar and Spain by allowing the British Overseas Territory to become part of the Schengen passport-free area with the sponsorship of Madrid.

The deal paves the way for the demolition of the controversial 1.2-kilometer physical barrier separating both territories, by moving border checks to Gibraltar’s port and airport.

Although politicians in Gibraltar and Spain have described the agreement as historic, it is not legally binding and must be transformed into an international treaty between the EU and the U.K.

The European Commission is due to publish its negotiating mandate by early May, kicking off the formal talks with London. Brussels must also give its view on the timetable for the talks and could opt for a longer negotiating period than the six months envisaged by Spain and Gibraltar. The Rock’s Chief Minister Fabian Picardo has warned the treaty should not be taken for granted.

Financial services

The Commission and the U.K. Treasury have reached a Memorandum of Understanding on financial services, creating a forum for communication between top-level officials on future regulation.

While the agreement lacks legal weight, it is nevertheless significant for the industry, as it provides for a formal channel to debate problems and, more importantly, propose solutions to cross-border trade barriers, money laundering and financial-stability.

The MoU also lays the foundation for close collaboration and gives certainty to the industry that so-called equivalence decisions will be discussed. A fully-fledged deal on financial equivalence whereby both sides would recognize each others' rules remains highly unlikely in the near future though.

Equivalence remains a unilateral prerogative for both sides, and so far little progress has been made on the subject. This has pushed many in Britain to consider alternative options, including regulatory divergence.

Karim Haji, KPMG’s head of financial services, said Friday that failing to obtain an equivalence deal would not be the end of the world for the City of London.

“If you take a step back, the U.K. has been one of the leaders in financial services regulation and infrastructure, it’s one of the key innovators in the space as well, and one of the leaders in the world, and that’s why the U.K. has been successful in exporting financial services — that isn’t changing as a result of Brexit,” he said.

“The regulatory regime that we had before Brexit and today is by and large the same, and many of the regulations that we talk about in terms of EU regulations, the U.K. was not only an active participant, but quite a leading thinker, and the relationship between the U.K. regulators and the European regulators is still strong, so I think that there are lots of positives.”

Source: Politico

Scotland in chaos: Sturgeon's independence obsession will tear nation apart

Since Britain voted to leave the EU almost five years ago, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has been presenting a picture of a united front wanting to achieve independence. Most recently, the Scottish National Party (SNP) leader even claimed the Covid crisis may have boosted support for leaving the Union. Ms Sturgeon said Scots had "looked to their own" leaders at a time of crisis - suggesting that her administration's handling of the pandemic had made people consider the "benefits" of a breakaway state. She insisted: "People have, at a time of crisis, looked to their own government here in Scotland to lead. "I think what we have seen is that natural inclination of people to look to their own democratically-elected government. And perhaps that has made people think about the benefit of self-government, and it may well be that that is having some kind of impact in the polls." Ms Sturgeon's comments came as the latest Panelbase poll showed pro-independence candidates on course to win a clear majority in May's Holyrood elections - a majority the First Minister would claim as a mandate for indyref2. However, a recent 2000 person mega-poll shows support for the Union remains on a knife-edge. The poll commissioned by Lord Ashcroft found 51 percent backed the UK compared to 49 percent in favour of independence. The figures could be problematic for Ms Sturgeon. If the 32 council areas vote as differently as they did seven years ago, the First Minister could risk tearing Scotland apart. The overall result of the 2014 independence referendum was slightly wider than predicted with 55 percent No to 45 percent Yes. However, a map detailing the strength of 2014's Yes/No vote across the nation shows the split varied greatly across areas. The closest result was Inverclyde with 50.1 No to 49.9 percent Yes. The firmest No vote was Orkney where 67.2 percent voted against independence, followed by Scottish Borders and Dumfries & Galloway. Dundee was the most pro-Yes with 57.4 percent, followed by West Dunbartonshire and Glasgow, which has an electorate of half a million people. This means that even if the SNP successfully achieved independence, certain regions could end up way more disappointed than others. In September, Orkney Islands Council said they would look at options to potentially become independent from Scotland with a number of choices on the table. Council leader James Stockan said that the islands could be governed as a Crown dependency similar to Jersey. He said: "We want to seek our opportunity as a unique part of the UK that we could do something different if we wished. All constitutional matters ultimately rest with Westminster, so the question is, we would need to make sure that is written into any future referendum." It came after Shetland Island councillors also voted 18 to two in favour of a motion to formally explore options "for achieving financial and political self-determination". In an exclusive interview with Express.co.uk, Ronald MacDonald, research professor of macroeconomics and international finance at Glasgow University's Adam Smith Business School, claimed their bid for independence would undoubtedly complicate things for the SNP. He said: "Oil is still significant but not as significant as it was 10 years ago, or as it was in 2014. It is going to continue to be less important going forward. It is more what it signals rather than the economics of it. Also, it would also signal to other parts of Scotland that if they don't vote for Scottish independence, maybe they could be separate and enclosed within Scotland. Areas from the border to the North East may not want Scottish independence." Mr MacDonald added: "It could be a very important national sovereignty issue."

Daily Express

The U.S. military takes UFOs seriously. Why doesn't Silicon Valley or academia?

In our era of life-changing innovation, there are major breakthroughs that could well come from the serious study of a phenomenon we too often mock: UFOs. The US government has reversed its official position of publicly ignoring UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomenon, the new trendy name for UFOs) and is starting to tackle the subject openly. But within academia and industry, the topic is still too frequently dismissed with a chuckle accompanied by some trite remark about “extraterrestrials.”

In February, for instance, one of the biggest innovators of this century, Elon Musk, was asked what he thought about the recent Pentagon acknowledgment that Navy pilots have seen objects flying in our airspace using advanced technology we can’t identify, let alone understand or explain or reproduce. Musk’s answer was, “Honestly, I think I would know if there were aliens,” and, honestly, this response could have come from any number of prominent scientists or industry figures.

Musk’s nonanswer was revealing because it suggested that he wasn’t aware of — or interested in — basic unclassified facts about military sightings of UFOs, or that the government is looking into the possibility that they are made from advanced technology that our scientists can’t yet figure out.

In June, a new task force championed by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., must submit an unclassified report on unidentified aerial phenomena to Congress. It comes as several erstwhile officials, including former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and two former CIA directors, have called for a more rigorous look at these sightings.

The most famous example (the one Musk was asked about) occurred when Navy pilots reported a craft resembling a Tic Tac that was moving unlike anything seen in the U.S. arsenal: They said it “wasn’t behaving by the normal laws of physics.”

The craft’s movements were, however, typical of both military and civilian UFO reports: Descending from 80,000 feet to 20,000 feet in an instant; stopping in midair and reversing direction without inertial effects; exceeding the speed of sound without generating a sonic boom; and submerging into the ocean.

After The New York Times and The Washington Post reported on it in 2017 along with the military’s secret UFO tracking program, the Pentagon publicly acknowledged last year that the leaked videos in the stories were authentic.

Now recently retired national security officials are speaking out. In the run-up to the task force’s report in June, John Ratcliffe, former director of national intelligence, told Fox News last month that there were “a lot more sightings than have been made public.” Similarly, James Woolsey, former director of the CIA, said on a podcast this month he was taking the subject seriously, as did a successor at the CIA, John Brennan, in December.

The Pentagon hasn’t offered an official explanation for UAPs like the Tic Tac craft, calling them “unidentified.” Former officials don’t seem to be willing to utter the word “alien,” but it’s the implication of what they do say. Lue Elizondo, who ran the secret Pentagon UFO tracking unit, has publicly ruled out the theory that the Tic Tac craft came from the U.S. arsenal or from the arsenals of our adversaries, leaving only the theory that it came from “someone or something else.”

According to Brennan, some of the phenomena we’re seeing “could involve some type of activity that some might say constitutes a different form of life.” U.S. Navy pilots who have actually seen the Tic Tac craft are even more direct, with one telling the Post it was “Something not from the Earth.”

While it’s good that the government is finally taking UFOs more seriously, its job is primarily to figure out whether they represent a military threat. But these unidentified objects may also represent an opportunity to advance our science and technology significantly — if our other two pillars of innovation, academia and industry, are willing to catch up.

Unfortunately, when scientists are asked about UFOs, they generally laugh off the subject. The well-known astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, for one, said he would only take the idea seriously when aliens send him a dinner invite. The government wants to know if these unidentified objects pose a military threat. But they also represent an opportunity to advance science and technology. An unidentified aerial phenomenon, or UAP, appears in this declassified video captured by a U.S. Navy aircraft.DoD via To the Stars Academy of Arts and Sciences, April 16, 2021,10:07 PM BST. In the long term, there could be multiple Nobel prizes, not to mention new laws of physics, for those who are willing to dive in and risk ridicule in the short term. In February, for instance, one of the biggest innovators of this century, Elon Musk, was asked what he thought about the recent Pentagon acknowledgment that Navy pilots have seen objects flying in our airspace using advanced technology we can’t identify, let alone understand or explain or reproduce. Musk’s answer was, “Honestly, I think I would know if there were aliens,” and, honestly, this response could have come from any number of prominent scientists or industry figures. Musk’s nonanswer was revealing because it suggested that he wasn’t aware of — or interested in — basic unclassified facts about military sightings of UFOs, or that the government is looking into the possibility that they are made from advanced technology that our scientists can’t yet figure out. In June, a new task force championed by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., must submit an unclassified report on unidentified aerial phenomena to Congress. It comes as several erstwhile officials, including former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and two former CIA directors, have called for a more rigorous look at these sightings. The most famous example (the one Musk was asked about) occurred when Navy pilots reported a craft resembling a Tic Tac that was moving unlike anything seen in the U.S. arsenal: They said it “wasn’t behaving by the normal laws of physics.” The craft’s movements were, however, typical of both military and civilian UFO reports: Descending from 80,000 feet to 20,000 feet in an instant; stopping in midair and reversing direction without inertial effects; exceeding the speed of sound without generating a sonic boom; and submerging into the ocean. After The New York Times and The Washington Post reported on it in 2017 along with the military’s secret UFO tracking program, the Pentagon publicly acknowledged last year that the leaked videos in the stories were authentic. Now recently retired national security officials are speaking out. In the run-up to the task force’s report in June, John Ratcliffe, former director of national intelligence, told Fox News last month that there were “a lot more sightings than have been made public.” Similarly, James Woolsey, former director of the CIA, said on a podcast this month he was taking the subject seriously, as did a successor at the CIA, John Brennan, in December.

The Pentagon hasn’t offered an official explanation for UAPs like the Tic Tac craft, calling them “unidentified.” Former officials don’t seem to be willing to utter the word “alien,” but it’s the implication of what they do say. Lue Elizondo, who ran the secret Pentagon UFO tracking unit, has publicly ruled out the theory that the Tic Tac craft came from the U.S. arsenal or from the arsenals of our adversaries, leaving only the theory that it came from “someone or something else.”

Unfortunately, when scientists are asked about UFOs, they generally laugh off the subject. The well-known astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, for one, said he would only take the idea seriously when aliens send him a dinner invite.

Why do leading scientists show such a profound lack of curiosity in a subject that might redefine not just their fields, but also all of science? It could lead to a new understanding of our place in the universe, and new advances in materials science, biology, quantum physics, cosmology and social sciences.

Part of the problem likely stems from an academic version of the old IBM rule in industry that “No one ever gets fired for buying IBM.” Similarly, no professor ever gets fired for mocking UFOs. The case of Harvard Medical School’s Dr. John Mack, though, shows the dangers if you don’t.

Thankfully, small cracks are appearing in academia’s wall of mockery. Avi Loeb, chief astronomer at Harvard University, was willing to say in his new book, “Extraterrestrial,” that he thinks that ‘Oumuamua, the first object we have spotted in the night sky whose origin is definitely from outside our solar system, was most likely a technological artifact of a long-vanished alien civilization.

Most academics, though, still invoke some version of Musk’s nonargument: “If aliens were here, we would know!” But the government is saying that it does know: These craft exist. My purpose today is not to convince you of the evidence, however, but to encourage academics and industry leaders to move beyond their biases into an open-minded investigation to figure out who or what created them, and how they work.

I’m not naïve enough to assume that academics will study UFOs just to further human knowledge. But to point out the obvious: In the long term, there could be multiple Nobel prizes, not to mention new laws of physics, for those who are willing to dive in and risk ridicule in the short term.

Scientists in Europe who dismissed the idea of rocks falling out of the sky eventually opened their minds enough to discover meteorites — ending up with a more complex understanding of the universe. The results this time could lead to new kinds of transportation devices capable of submerging into the ocean and in the air, transporting cargo and passengers across the globe in minutes, as well as ferrying humans safely beyond planet Earth.

Similar rewards await industry risk-takers as well, especially innovators in Silicon Valley who are interested in speculative topics such as the Singularity and the Simulation Hypothesis. To some extent, their apathy is the predictable spillover effect from the ivory tower: Venture capital firms aren’t going to invest in something that academics haven’t stamped as “viable” technology.

But peer pressure may also be at work here, too. Businessman Joe Firmage, for instance, was once the toast of the valley only to resign so as not to hurt his company’s reputation after speaking of his interest in UFOs (and being skewered as “the Fox Mulder of Silicon Valley” in the press).

Despite the risks, there are some encouraging signs. Recently, Prof. Garry Nolan of Stanford University and Jacques Vallee, a venture capitalist who worked with J. Allen Hynek — a part of the Air Force’s first UFO investigation group, Project Blue Book, from 1947-1969 — have teamed up to investigate samples of materials supposedly ejected at purported UFO landing sites.

As a starting point, if the ratios of the metals’ specific isotopes don’t naturally occur on Earth, the chemical composition could open up new opportunities for high-performance craft materials on- and off-planet. Vallee (inspiration for the French scientist in director Steven Spielberg’s “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”) told me they would go through the academic peer-review processes, which might greatly advance respect for the subject.

Where does this leave us?

We will know more when the Pentagon’s report on unidentified aerial phenomena comes out in June, but now that the government is starting to take UFOs seriously, it’s high time that more academics and industry leaders step up to do the same.

nbcnews