Brexit transition ‘not a given’, EU’s Barnier warns

The European Union’s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier said it was ‘important to tell the truth’ that border checks between Northern Ireland and Ireland would be ‘unavoidable’ if it left the single market and the customs union. (Reuters)
Updated 09 February 2018
0

Brexit transition ‘not a given’, EU’s Barnier warns

BRUSSELS: EU negotiator Michel Barnier warned Friday that plans for a post-Brexit transition period to ease the pain of the split were at risk because of “substantial” disagreements with Britain.
Barnier also rejected claims by his British counterpart David Davis that Brussels had been “discourteous” by including a punishment clause in a draft transition deal in case Britain breached the bloc’s rules.
“If these disagreements persist, the transition is not a given,” Barnier told a news conference in Brussels after a round of Brexit talks with British negotiators. “To be frank I am surprised by these disagreements.”
Britain hopes to agree by an EU summit next month on a transition period of around two years after it leaves the European Union in 2019.
During this period, Britain will still follow EU laws in exchange for access to the single market, but lose all decision-making power.
Barnier said deep divisions remained on citizens’ rights for EU migrants moving to Britain during the transition, as well as the UK’s ability to object to new EU laws passed during the phase.
There was also a row over whether Britain could have a say in new justice and home affairs policies during the transition, which the EU says should last from Brexit Day on March 29, 2019 to December 31, 2020.
The Brexit transition is aimed at giving citizens, businesses and public services time to get used to the impact of Britain leaving, and to allow more space for talks on an eventual EU-UK trade deal.
Barnier added that he “wasn’t talking about a threat” but “if this disagreement were to persist there would undoubtedly be a problem, I hope we would be able to resolve those disagreements in the next round” of talks.
The former French minister also hit back at comments made by his UK counterpart David Davis, who was not in Brussels, that the EU was acting in bad faith and had been “discourteous.”
“There has not been the slightest trace of a lack of courtesy or of aggressivity,” Barnier said.
Barnier said that he did not understand the angry British reaction to a draft EU transition agreement that contained swift sanctions for Britain if it breached the terms of the deal, including freezing its single market access.
“There is no desire to punish,” Barnier said, adding that it was standard for international agreements to have a “serious and effective” enforcement mechanism.
A draft EU agreement published on Wednesday calls for the ability to sanction Britain in cases in which it would take too long to refer any breach of those rules to the EU’s top court.
That could include reimposing tariffs or customs checks, both of which Britain is supposed to be free of as a member of the EU internal market.
This week’s talks also covered the thorny issue of Northern Ireland.
Britain and the EU reached an interim deal in December on three key separation issues — the financial settlement, the Irish border and the rights of EU citizens after Brexit.
But translating that into a proper legal agreement is proving especially difficult on the Northern Irish issue.
Barnier said it was “important to tell the truth” that border checks between Northern Ireland and Ireland would be “unavoidable” if it left the single market and the customs union.
He added that the eventual deal would contain an emergency option which states that if Britain fails to find a special solution for Northern Ireland, the UK would remain in “full alignment” with the EU on trade issues to ease the border impact.
Northern Irish unionists and pro-Brexit lawmakers have already angrily rejected this.
Britain and the EU aim to start talks on a future relationship in April but time is running out. Barnier says a draft deal is needed by November so it can be ratified in time for Brexit.


Tension builds in row over women’s entry into Hindu temple in Kerala

In this file photo taken on October 18, 2018 Indian Hindu devotees are pictured at the Lord Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala in the southern state of Kerala. (AFP)
Updated 13 November 2018
0

Tension builds in row over women’s entry into Hindu temple in Kerala

  • Hindu women demand their right of religious freedom as 41-day festival approaches
  • Kerala polarized over female entry into the hilltop temple

NEW DELHI: Tension in the air as Sabarimala Hilltop temple in the South Indian state of Kerala is being prepared to open on Nov. 17 for a 41-day Hindu festival.
The tension pertains to the entry of females between the ages of 10 to 50 into the ancient temple of Ayyappa, a deity who devotees believe is celibate and abhors the entry into the temple of women of marriageable age.
The Indian Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment in the last week of September, laid down a rule that bars the entry of young women into the temple. This led to a severe protest across the state, with women being stopped forcefully from entering the temple.
Last month, when the temple opened for six days, at least 12 women tried to enter the hillside temple but a violent crowd blocked their passage, with police looking helpless. At least 560 women in the barred age group have enrolled for the annual pilgrimage that starts in less than a week.
“We are taking all kinds of steps to see that devotees can pay their obeisance to the deity in a peaceful manner,” S. Sreejith, the Kerala inspector general of police, told Arab News.

Political mileage
Before coming to the temple, devotees observe celibacy for 41 days and avoid all kinds of meat and alcohol. They also don black robes for the period.
“The soul of any temple is the deity inside. The deity Aayyappa is a bachelor and that’s why the entry of young women is regulated in the temple,” says Rahul Easwar, a Hindu right-wing activist with close links to the Sabarimala temple.
Talking to Arab News, Easwar said: “We will never say anything against the Supreme Court. We are fighting for our rights to believe and our rights to have our own faith.”
However, women rights activist Kavita Krishnan claimed that “the entire controversy is clearly politically manufactured by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).”
The BJP is looking for political mileage in Kerala — the state where it is a small marginal player,” added Krishnan, secretary of All India Progressive Women’s Association.
She pointed out that “the entire debate is concocted. It is well known that women’s entry was allowed until the 1990s, and it was stopped upon a court order. The Supreme Court order has only undone that order.”
The local government of Kerala, a coalition of communist parties, supports women’s entry into the temple.
Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, in a news conference on Saturday, said: “Opposition to changes in customs is quite natural. But there is no going back. Toilets, bathing facilities and accommodation facilities at Nilakkal will be set up for women devotees. The current crisis is temporary.”
K. Surendran of the BJP, however, said: “This is a matter of belief and the court should not interfere. Why does the court not interfere in the affairs of other minority religions?”
The BJP spokesperson in Kerala told Arab News: “The women who want to enter the temple are not devotees but activists. They are not believers.
“The local government is trying to polarize the issue by supporting women’s entry because it wants to gain the support of other religious minorities,” added Surendran.
Sandhya Acharya, a woman devotee who has registered to go to the Sabarimala temple, told Arab News that there is an “attempt to deny entry to women by calling them activists.
“Why should there be discrimination in the house of God in the name of gender?” she asked.
Rajesh Krishnan, a Kerala-based activist and intellectual, said: “The whole issue has polarized the society in Kerala. The issue has become all the more vicious after the BJP entered the debate and saw it as an opportunity to win over the people and make an entry into the southern Indian state.”
Around 42 review petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court and Tuesday the Apex court will decide whether it should revisit its judgment or not.