Polish Londoner

These are the thoughts and moods of a born Londoner who is proud of his Polish roots.



Sunday, 23 July 2017

Defend Polish democracy but not with sanctions




Letter to The Editor of "The Observer"

Dear Sir,

Your editorial (23.7.17) is right to highlight the danger of “Poland’s flight from democracy” but your readers should not be under the illusion that Poland has no democratic traditions. The multi-ethnic Polish-Lithuanian Republic, which saw itself as a continuation of the Roman Republic, had been a bastion for parliamentary democracy, religious tolerance and humanism in the XVth and XVIth centuries. These ideas re-emerged in Poland’s national revival at the end of the XVIIIth century when it voted itself Europe’s first liberal constitution. In its struggle to reclaim its independence in the following two centuries it did so under the banner of “Your Freedom and Ours”. It was Poland that produced one of the most celebrated and successful peaceful civic resistance movements in the Solidarity Union led by the iconic Lech Wałęsa, after which it was able to restore parliamentary democratic rule and a vibrant economy which over the next 25 years successfully rode out the recession and was a model for developing nations.

Of course, the Third Republic was not a perfect institution and many did not share in its wealth. Spooked by regional inequality, unresolved retribution for its Communist past, the refugee crisis and the tragic plane crash in 2010 which killed President Kaczynski and a large slice of Poland’s military and political leaders, Polish society underwent a similar populist crisis to that of the Trump election victory and the Brexit referendum, and at one stage threatened us with a victory for extremist parties in France, Holland, Italy and Austria. Robust national democratic institutions and a continuous democratic tradition in those countries prevented a total subversion of democracy. It could still do the same in Poland, even though its current democratic institutions are less than one generation old.

Western Europe and the EU institutions are right to sound the alarm and to support the democratic opposition, but actual economic sanctions against Poland would be counter-productive as they would increase the current Polish paranoia and bind the majority of the electorate closer to the ruling party. It would be more productive to give specific moral and even material support to independent Polish institutions such as OKO Press that monitor transgressions of the law and ensure consistent and unbiased coverage of events in Poland.

Polish society, which voted in the current authoritarian government in 2015, must resolve the current crisis in Poland with its own resources.
Wiktor Moszczynski

Sunday, 25 June 2017

Visit to DExEU and Home Office 23/6/17 - email to UK MPs and Polish Euro-MPs


Dear Friends,

Our joint organizations the3million (representing EU citizens here) and BritsinEurope (representing UK citizens in EU) had a meeting this morning with officials from DExEU and the Home Office in advance of the Government position paper to be presented in the House of Commons on Monday.

We were presented with the following paper:

"PM offers certainty to EU citizens

The Prime Minister tonight set out details of the rights and status EU citizens in the U.K. will enjoy after Brexit - vowing to give them reassurance, and to make them a priority in negotiations.

Theresa May told EU leaders she wanted to provide as much certainty as possible to the three million EU citizens currently living in Britain as she outlined the fair deal the U.K. intends to offer.

Reiterating that she wanted to reach a reciprocal settlement for EU citizens in Britain and UK nationals living in Europe as quickly as possible, the PM told fellow EU leaders her aim is to provide EU citizens in the UK with:

- Certainty: with a clear commitment that no EU citizen currently in the UK lawfully will be asked to leave the country at the point that the UK leaves the EU, and all EU citizens lawfully here at the point the UK leaves will have the opportunity to regularise their status to remain in the country. The PM told leaders that the UK does not want anyone here to have to leave, nor does it want families to be split up;

- The opportunity to achieve settled status: any EU citizen in the UK with five years residence, at a specified date no earlier than the trigger of Article 50, and no later than the UK’s exit from the EU, will be granted UK settled status. We will be aiming to treat them as if they were UK citizens for healthcare, education, benefits and pensions. Any EU citizens with less than five years residence who arrive before the cut off date will be given time to stay until they have the five years of residence to obtain UK settled status;

- A specified cut-off date no earlier than the trigger of Article 50, and no later than the UK’s exit from the EU. While the specific date will be the subject of discussion, the PM made clear that all EU citizens currently here will have their rights protected under EU law until the date we leave the EU;

- A grace period: the length of this period is still to be determined but expected to be up to two years - to allow people to regularise their status. No one will face a cliff edge. So all EU citizens either here today or arriving before we leave the EU will have the opportunity to regularise their status under new rules;

- Streamlined administration: the PM signalled that the administration of this system would be as streamlined as possible – with more details to be set out next week – using digital tools to register people in a light touch way.

Finally, the PM reiterated that reciprocity was, of course, vital, and that both sides should seek to agree terms and give certainty as early as possible in the talks.

Taken together, the PM said the UK’s position represented a fair and serious offer – and one aimed at giving as much certainty as possible to citizens who have settled in the UK, building careers and lives, and contributing so much to our society.

The full paper will be laid before Parliament next week.

It was explained to us that the final details would appear in the position paper Monday afternoon which the3million delegation will see at lunchtime and Parliament in the afternoon.
We pointed out that it would have been more fruitful if the Government had prepared such a position paper several months ago when they could still have retained some control of the agenda on issues that concerned them such as controlling a late surge of EU arrivals. Now the Government will find they are too late to regain the initiative.
We also criticized the comments about wanting reciprocity from EU when the EU position has already ensured reciprocity and with a much more ambitious project that the UK.
We also commented how little the Government had actually done for UK citizens abroad, except to use them (and us) as a bargaining chip. We particularly condemned a proposal that the children of UK citizens abroad would not be eligible for UK citizenship if they were not to spend part of their childhood in the UK.
We noted the positive points on which the offer was based seeing the so-called "settled status" as indefinite leave to remain with some improvements because of our former EU status.
We appreciated that the DExEU and Home Office wanted to continue a dialogue with us at various stages on an ongoing process during the negotiations and were pleased to be advised that the final agreement will have an international treaty status.
We were told that the so-called grace period would be for the benefit of both EU citizens here before the cut off point and those after, giving all of them the chance to make up the 5 year period over time.
All will have to register on a simpler online format over a 2 year period between now and March 2019, and that includes those already with permanent residence. However we pointed out that we thought 2 years would not be an adequate period. I reminded them of my previous arguments for letting local authorities use their records in order to initiate registration with their residents and was told that some element of this would be taking place.
However when we asked for details on a number of issues we were advised that the final version to be revealed on Monday will cover all of the points our delegations raised.

These included the eligibility for settled status to:
1/ Those on low wages, and especially carers, whose level of income does not make them eligible for permanent residence at present.
2/ The future of using WRS as a reason to hamper permanent residence now and take away British citizenship granted to British-born children of Polish origin 5 years ago, even though WRS was discontinued in 2011
3/ those without comprehensive sickness insurance
4/ those not currently in the country because working or studying abroad after a stay in the UK
5/ non-EU relatives of EU citizens
6/ EU citizens who invest in the UK but do not have regular extended residence here
7/ the homeless who have worked here for a number of years earlier

We also asked if this settled status included
1/ Paying UK level fees for higher education
2/ voting rights in local elections
3/ recognition of EU university qualifications
4/ being inherited by children of settled status residents not yet born
5/ possibility to apply for Attendance Allowance or Personal Independence Payment regardless of any pension paid out by EU country
6/ right to move and work freely between UK and EU countries
7/ right of equal treatment at work and in job applications
8/ right to use EHIC card
9/ right of membership of UK trade union

Apart from that we also raised the issue of the cut off point and the need for EU and UK to ringfence any agreement on citizenship and implement this into UK and EU law this year.

On all these matters we were assured that the the Monday position paper would have a view.
It may be worth cross-checking the final version of Monday and raise issues where a satisfactory answer has not been given.
We understand that the UK government rejected the notion of the European Court of Justice having jurisdiction on EU and UK membership in EU but we pointed out that we would have to have considerable reassurance about the content of UK legislation first as we would feel safer under the ECJ because of the blatant misjudgements by the UK government and the Home Office in relation to EU citizens so far.

Hopfully many of these points will be treated adequately in next week's position paper.

Best regards and good luck
Wiktor Moszczynski

Wednesday, 21 June 2017

Letter to Editor of i - Glossary on Hard and Soft Brexit



Dear Editor,

I thought your readers may find the use of terms like "hard" and "soft" Brexit, as used by Tory and Labour politicians, somewhat confusing.
So here is a glossary on these terms:

1/ Hard Brexit - We leave single market and customs union singing and dancing and rely on Word Trade Organization rules for our trade with EU

2/ Soft Brexit - We leave single market and customs union crying and weeping and begging EU to be nice to us and give us access as "partners" rather than "members" of both, provided we allow a few more of those EU foreigners into the country.

Hope that will be helpful to your readers.

Yours faithfully,
Wiktor Moszczynski

Tuesday, 13 June 2017

Speech at Hammersmith & Fulham Unity Day


My name is Wiktor Moszczynski and as you can guess from a name like that I am a Londoner.
I am a member of the Federation of Poles in Great Britain and I speak on behalf of the Polish community in West London whose historic roots go back to the Second World War when my parents and others arrived here to fight alongside the British in the struggle against Nazi Germany by land, sea and air, at a time when Poland was Britain’s most steadfast ally from the beginning to the end of the War. They remained here as refugees after the War when Poland and her neighbours were left under Soviet rule and when our community organized themselves around veterans’ organizations, parishes, social centres and Saturday schools, many of which exist to this day. There were influxes of Poles arriving here during the 60s and 70s and 90s but the largest arrival came here following Poland’s accession to the European Union in 2004.
Currently there are some 950,00 Polish citizens in the UK, some 170,000 in London alone, but remember that these figures do not cover second and third generation Poles like myself who have had British citizenship from birth. You see our shops, you hire our plumbers, you will be served by Polish waitresses, be helped by Polish carers, hear Polish swear words at building sites, and commute to work with Polish bankers, lawyers and accountants. There are 10,700 Polish citizens eligible to vote in local London elections, of which one and a half thousand are in Hammersmith and 13,000 in neighbouring Ealing. Polish families are a largely integrated factor in the social and cultural fabric of London with a dynamic input into the local economy. There are 32,000 Polish-speaking children in our London schools, of which 503 are in Hammersmith and 4363 in Ealing. Those children see themselves as British as well as Polish, they speak both languages fluently and see themselves as part of London’s future.
You can imagine the shock those children felt on the night of 23rd June last year, following the Brexit referendum, when their world caved in and they felt that they were no longer wanted here. Teachers had to separate many of these Polish children and their other Eastern European classmates and console them, as other children asked them when they were going back to Poland. That was when the front of the Polish Centre in Hammersmith was smeared in graffiti, when Polish families were shouted at for speaking Polish in buses, when Poles were assaulted in race attacks in Yeovil, in St Ives, in Leeds, in Telford, in Lancaster, in Luton and most notably in Harlow where a Polish worker was killed. There were vandalised attacks on houses in Bristol, in Reading in Worcester. There were police reports on arson attacks on Polish homes, abusive messages on a war memorial in Portsmouth and on Polish shops. Police were drawn towards abusive messages on the internet, often between teenagers on the social media, which included at least one case of a Polish schoolgirl in Cornwall committing suicide and of many instances of verbal abuse including one where a patient with a heart condition had to be put on a life-saving machine in Leeds, as well as the famous incident of the anti-Polish laminated cards distributed in Huntingdon.
Of course, in the first 4 months it was not just Poles who suffered this kind of abuse. It happened to many other minorities too in that strange dark frightening period after the referendum when people haunted with the demons of unbridled racism felt that this was the time to let their prejudices run riot, hoping in this way to hound non-British, non-white minorities into frightened silence or even into leaving the country.
I am happy to say that racism did not prevail. Many people in Britain went out of their way to show solidarity with the abused and the victims. After the graffiti incident in the Polish Centre in Hammersmith the building was overwhelmed with people sending flowers, gifts and letters of support, especially from London schoolchildren. Many of those incidents are not being repeated now but racist words can still flare up in road accidents, neighbour disputes. The undercurrent of racism does still rumble on. Unfortunately, much of it is not reported to the police as Poles feel reluctant to present themselves as victims and fear retribution and legal complications.
Let us not just assume that racism exists only in one section of society. We must guard against racism in all communities. Some people feel that expressing contempt for other minorities somehow makes them more British. Well no. It doesn’t. It just makes them more racist. Let us remember that an act of racism against any minority is an act of racism against all of us.
The Brexit negotiations are about to start on Monday week, especially on the issue of EU citizens’ rights. We believe that Poles and other EU citizens should not be bargaining chips in these negotiations. The British government should guarantee our rights unilaterally and most parties now agree to this.
I would like to thank the Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham for organizing this happy event each year and I am delighted that the Polish community is invited to participate. We do so with gratitude and pride.
Wiktor Moszczynski 11th June 2017

Friday, 19 May 2017

Home Office declares war on Polish children and Polish disabled


Two more examples of deliberate insensitivity by the Home Office. They are obviously pandering to the hopeless Tory manifesto pledge of bringing down immigration to the "tens of thousands". Because it is unachievable the application of existing and new Home Office rules will be applied all the more indoscriminately and with scruples over the mst vulnerable in society.

Have already passed this information to the Polish EuroMPs I made contact with in Brussels.

Firstly, Polish children normally received British passports after they were born here when their parent(s) could show they had worked here for at least 5 years and so were eligible for permanent residence.
Now, when it comes to passport renewal after 5 years, the children are stripped of their British nationality where it transpired that the parent had not registered earlier for the Worker Registration Scheme which had been valid in the period 2004 to 2011. Please remember that WRS was optional when it came to the legality of working here, but necessary only when an EU national applied for any benefits, These children are now left stranded without any travel document and quite understandably upset. They can apply separately for British citizenship again but only after paying a fee of £973.

Secondly, elderly Poles, many now bed-ridden and frail, who have lived here for 30 or more years and who have applied for attendance allowance or for disability benefit (under its new euphemistic name - personal independence payment) have been turned down if they receive a pension (no matter how paltry) from Poland. The Home Office response is is that if they are eligible for a small pension in Poland from their earlier years, then they should also apply for these benefits in Poland.

At the "Keep Race out of the Election" meeting I attended in Stratford on Tuesday I explained the work of the3miilion and we had an interesting discussion about
the issue of EU rights and the racist implications of a restrictive immigration policy. NUT teachers were very concerned about the Home Office requiring that schools now seek to record the place of birth and the nationality of children as well as their home language. There was a fear that it would be part of a Home Office plan to identify potential deportees for the future - Roma, Muslim, asylum seekers, East Europeans. Who knows? These points made with Nahella Ashraf.
They wanted to organize a series of mass rallies after June 8th "whoever wins" against racism and on behalf of EU citizens rights. They asked if the3miilion would be interested to participate. Of course I did not commit us but said I would mention it to my colleagues..
We'll be in touch tomorrow.
Cheers

Tuesday, 25 April 2017

Ring fence guarantee for EU citizens and UK citizens

Letter to the Editor of "Mail on Sunday"

I hope that your readers who have been overwhelmed with information on the snap so-called "Brexit election" in the last few days will spare a thought for the front line victims of the Brexit decision, namely 2.9 million EU citizens left stranded in this country with their families, uncertain of their prospects and unable to vote in this election which decides their future.
As Theresa May had failed to give them any guarantee about their right to stay, the matter is likely to be dragged out for the next 2 years in negotiations with the EU.
Could not each major party make a statement now, reinforced by inclusion in their manifesto, that all EU citizens currently here under Treaty rules should be allowed to retain their acquired rights to live and work here and that any early agreement on that with EU negotiators should be guaranteed permanently, ring-fenced and put into law immediately, so that the rights of both EU citizens here and UK citizens abroad will not be jeopardized should later negotiations fail.
This is vital for the future of these hard working UK taxpayers with EU nationality whose presence is vital to the economic prosperity, cultural richness and provision of essential services such as the NHS and social care in this country.
Wiktor Moszczynski
Published in "Mail on Sunday" 23 April 2017

Thursday, 20 April 2017

What About EU citizens in Brexit election?


Letter published in "i" - 20th April 2017




From Wiktor Moszczynski, 48 Inglis Road, London W5 3RW, tel. 07786471833

Letter to Mr Oliver Duff, Editor of "i"

So we have 11 pages of Brexit coverage following your headline "stunned Britain heads to the polls"
(19/04/2017) but who speaks for the equally stunned and disenfranchised (again) 3 million EU citizens with their families left stranded here with their future still unresolved?

Surely now is the moment for all major parties to declare jointly that the future of the EU citizens currently in this country can be guaranteed. Such a declaration would be hailed by UK business and have a positive influence on the final draft of the negotiation strategy waiting for finalizing next week by the European Parliament and the European Council.
Yours sincerely
Wiktor Moszczynski

Monday, 17 April 2017

EU and post-Brexit UK – A New Partnership


It is important to set a new common goal for both the UK and EU negotiators that would draw each side away from the current endgame mentality of ensuring the best terms for one party and the worst for the other side. Currently both sides are dominated by a negative attitude. Despite declarations to the contrary, the EU side is guided by its claim that the UK must get a worse deal than it had had hitherto as an EU member and that there will be no “cherry-picking” of what it wants most from the single market. The UK government in turn is acting defiant in face of EU negotiating terms, still anxious to keep the more single-minded hard Brexit lobby onside. These negative approaches feed off each other.
The UK attitude springs from the unclear “democratic mandate” of the present British Prime Minister who has not won an electoral mandate for herself or her government and is being steered (some say “spooked”) by the need to try and interpret the referendum result while hide under the empty mantra “Brexit is Brexit”.
Initially the EU negotiators’ mandate was not based on a direct electoral mandate either. It was based on an agreement between the EU heads of government, largely under an agenda hammered out by the EU Commission and the German government. It was next endorsed and even upgraded in severity by the European Parliament, but not by the national parliaments of the EU.
Both such hastily concocted mandates could crumble under pressure, the UK one from divisions in the ruling Conservative Party over the conduct of negotiations, the other from divisions between EU member countries and possible upsets in the coming French and German elections, as well as the unresolved euro and refugee crises.
It does not help that neither side has sufficient trust in the good will of the other. The Gibraltar row was but a more extreme example of this distrust. It gives a hint of the tide of nationalism that lurks between the surface ready to emerge whenever either negotiating party decides to rely too much on negative emotions rather than common sense and mutual interest of both the EU and the UK. The requirement by the EU side that Spain would have a veto over any final deal has even caused former leading UK politicians to raise the spectre of the Falklands War. On the British side, constant blunders by the Home Office in its reinterpretation of “automatic right” to permanent residence for EU citizens and their families, as well as flippant comments by foreign secretary Boris Johnson and the provocative jeers of Nigel Farage in the European Parliament, all served initially to anger public opinion in the EU media and provoke the EU to set a tougher stance. Comments in the past from EU Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, and his undiplomatic chief of staff Martin Selmayr, have also been unhelpful.
Some EU negotiating initiatives seem almost vindictive, such as the immediate transfer of EU agencies, the European Medicines Agency and the European Banking Agency, from London to other European capitals, as well as the current threat of punitive sanctions against UK companies bidding to participate in the Galileo satellite navigation project. The ultimate negotiating goal for both parties remains worlds apart and in the case of the EU it is primarily expressed in terms of the how much more damaging to the UK the future relationship with the single market must be. It is welcome news that Donald Tusk intends to meet Theresa May regularly in order to retain an atmosphere of trust and reduce tension over the more contentious issues.
The EU negotiators are adamant that the issue of EU citizens and the 60 billion euro exit bill must be settled first and that the future trade deal which the UK wants can only be discussed after the legal and financial repercussions of the separation have been resolved. These tough EU negotiating guidelines are likely to be finalized and approved at an EU summit in Brussels on April 29th. The EU has the stronger leverage because it now controls the timetable for the next 2 years and possibly for longer after that. The only leverage left to the UK is a threat to end all negotiations without any agreement which would be worse for UK than for EU, even though many EU manufacturers and exporters like the German car industry would suffer too. David Davis has admitted that if the UK leaves the customs union with no deal then the UK dairy and meat products could face levies between 30% and 40% while UK car makers like Jaguar will face 10% tariffs on their exports to the EU.
It is worth remembering that 44% of UK exports in goods and services go to other countries in the EU (£240bln out of £550bln in total), while the UK imports £290bln from the other EU countries. In fact the UK is the largest single export market for the EU’s goods and services as a whole (16.9%), just ahead of the USA (16.5%). Commercially, both have much to lose. In the meantime, the UK has been seeking better trading relations with the white Commonwealth countries, the USA, India, China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and the Philippines, none of which could match the EU in commercial importance and many of which would entail closer cooperation with authoritarian countries that do not share UK and EU democratic values.
The problem for the UK government is that it has no clear electoral mandate for the specific kind of Brexit deal it should be striving for. The UK public still does not have a clear view of the implications of Brexit, except in the broadest terms, and the government has not clarified this to them. There has been no general election since the referendum vote on June 23rd last year and so no opportunity for the government to spell out clearly to the public the costs and losses of leaving the single market. The minor parties, such as the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, are clear in their intention to either reverse the Brexit vote or to settle for the closest possible relationship to the single market. Unfortunately, both the membership and the electorate of the two major parties, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, has no such clear Brexit road-map. This can only be achieved if Parliament chooses to vote out the current parliament by a 2/3 majority and call for a new general election with a coherent platform of a New Partnership between a future post-Brexit UK and the EU. This could be offered to the electorate by either the Conservatives or Labour, or both and it would have the advantage of uniting each party internally and offering a realistic option to the country.
The New Partnership would be based on something that matters to both parties, namely sustaining good trading relations between the UK and EU with open access to each other’s markets. So, it would be vital for both sides to retain tariff free access to the single market provided the UK can satisfy the EU’s current demand that it can still offer free movement in capital, goods, services and labour. In the matter of free movement of labour, the one truly contentious issue, the UK should consider still offering free access for EU citizens, but kept under control with limited or no access to out of work benefits for the first 3 years of their paid employment and no access to in work benefits until the EU citizen has applied successfully for indefinite leave to remain after 5 years. The issue of immigration to most of the UK electorate was a matter of “control” rather than an end to immigration as such. David Cameron’s earlier negotiations before the referendum showed it was possible to gain some leeway in this direction from the EU and that was at a time when no EU leader took Brexit seriously. Now that all parties are clear that Brexit is upon us and with the proviso that an element of trust between EU and UK negotiators is restored, then the EU may well want to show flexibility over benefits with the UK. Even the seemingly intransigent European Parliament is aware of the need to have a public debate in the course of these negotiations on the future of the European Union and has already made clear in its Draft Resolution on Negotiations with the UK that Brexit should “compel the EU-27 and the Union institutions to better address the current challenges and to reflect on their future and on their efforts to make the European project more effective, more democratic, and closer to their citizens”.
The New Partnership should be open to all countries in the EEA, including Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein, as well as to the UK and the EU countries and could be supervised by a Consultative UK/EEA Council. The non-EU countries within the EEA will be free to decide whether and when this free movement of labour will apply to future countries applying for EU membership.
In this New Partnership, the UK will be allowed to exclude agriculture and fisheries from joint UK/EEA policy, will not be obliged to subscribe to any new EU legislation and be free to amend current EU legislation presently included in the Great Repeal Bill. The main concern for the EU negotiators on this matter would be the need for the UK to retain “a level playing field” in terms of taxes and no dumping of subsidized exports. The UK would also be free to make new international trade deals outside of the EU after the Brexit separation deal is concluded, but these will be the subject of consultation with the UK/EEA Consultative Council.
In order to build early EU confidence in the UK’s proposed New Partnership with the EEA, the UK should be ready to take the first step on the issue on which all 27 EU countries are most sensitive – their own citizens in the UK. The UK could make a unilateral declaration guaranteeing the right to stay and retain acquired rights for all EU citizens in the UK, or who have residences in the UK, valid at least up to and including the date the declaration is made. EU citizens could then be promptly registered and issued with appropriate special status IDs by local authorities and their pathway to eventual Indefinite Leave to Remain, and ultimately to UK British citizenship, can be retained. The EU status of permanent residence would become redundant so all those who had obtained it would automatically receive the UK equivalent status of Indefinite Leave to Remain. The question of the rights of future EU citizens coming to the UK during the negotiation period can still be a subject for further discussions with the EU. The EU negotiating position is based on similar rights being offered to UK citizens abroad to those being offered by the UK government, on the declared grounds of “reciprocity”, “continuity” and “symmetry”, so they would be obliged to make their reciprocal statements about UK citizens after the UK declaration is made. Details of the rights of newly arrived EU and UK citizens in the 2 year negotiating period and the 3 year transition period can be the subject of further separate negotiation while the UK should recognize that for the 2 year period of negotiation any new arrivals would still be able to enjoy full EU status, even if only temporarily.
The UK government should also express its readiness to try for a 3 year transitional period after the 2 year negotiating period is over and a separation deal has been reached and approved so as to give time for the trade negotiations to be completed. Even in those trade talks the main discussion will be around divergence (rather than with the convergence required in other EU treaties, such as with Canada) so the less that needs to be excluded from current trade arrangements, the more likely they will be to reach a quicker agreement. The European Parliament, which ultimately has to ratify any deal with the UK, has already conceded this 3 year transitional period, although it insists on the European Court of Justice remaining the final arbiter in that period, something which the UK government may still want to challenge, even in the New Partnership.
It would also help in mutual confidence building if the UK government should give support to other EU initiatives such as the attempted naval blockade in the southern Mediterranean and future joint declarations with EU on security, peace initiatives and aid programmes world-wide. It should also go for the widest possible cooperation on scientific research. The UK would be free however to opt in or out of common regional fund programmes, the European Space Agency, Erasmus or climate change initiatives, even if only as a third party, and the UK may well negotiate a new looser associate status with Euratom, similar to that of Switzerland.
While the proposed New Partnership may seem naïve and over optimistic in the current negative climate in which the negotiations are being approached, it is still a much better option for both sides. It will require the need for both Conservatives and Labour to face the electorate promptly with courage and honesty, recognizing the reality of Brexit but saving both the UK and the EU from its worst excesses. it will allow the vexed question of displaced EU and UK citizens to be sorted fairly and quickly; it make it easier to resolve the border issues in Ireland, Gibraltar and the British bases in Cyprus; it will conduct the financial and legal separation in good faith, and it will ensure that the final trade settlement and future relationship will still be in the interest of all parties, including all 27 countries of the EU and all 4 nations of the United Kingdom.

Wiktor Moszczynski