- In the last 24 hours, five journalists have been arrested while covering the riots
- In cities designed by men, public spaces are anything but
- Can we stop the opioid epidemic before it’s too late?
- Sins of the father: The sordid tale of Bach’s boys
- Trump threatens to classify Antifa as a terrorist organisation as curfew begins in 20 states
The results of the French and Dutch elections have reduced Britain’s bargaining power post-Brexit. The only way to bargain her way out of it and secure decent terms is through unhinged unity.
So long as the European Union will not allow Brexit to be the template for further exits by its remaining 27 members, the success of the negotiations will depend on who blinks first.
Indeed the tug and pull of these opposing teams has turned war-like, judging by the leaks from the recent dinner at Downing Street between British Prime Minister Theresa May and EU President Jean-Claude Juncker.
Both sides await the starter’s gun following the UK’s general election on June 8, but not before digging their heels into deep ruts for better leverage. While the EU tests the thickness of the rope that will bring home a “serious offer” on the rights of the 3.2 million EU citizens living in Britain, as well the size of the exit bill, Britain dusts its hands to get a firm grip on the “detailed outline” of a future free trade deal before it agrees to pay up.
Like any divorce, with or without goodwill, it comes down to money. And when pre-nuptials were never signed, just laws of co-habitation, there is bound to be acrimony.
Gone is the talk of EU parliamentarians standing in solidarity with British Remainers. Instead both line-ups are shouting for more man-power. EU members, in danger of being pitted against each other by the financial shortfall that Britain’s departure will create, are trying to prioritise better internal co-operation and collaboration.
For her part, May’s combative accusation that the EU wants to influence the outcome of the British election – having had her demands described as emanating “from another galaxy” by Juncker – helps rally Britons behind her.
Pre-emptive gloves have come off, as both sides attempt to fracture each other’s alliances. Will expediency prevail or will it be a case of who has least to lose if the deal fails and Britain defaults to WTO rules?
The opening positions of the two sides appear mutually intractable. May’s rejection of one of the EU’s four core principles, the free movement of labour, precludes any future membership of the single market. When Britain then tries to strike favourable sectoral deals on essential areas such as financial services, the car industry, agriculture and fisheries, the EU accuses it of cherry-picking.
Another British rejection, of the jurisdiction of EU law and the European Court of Justice over British law – the nub of Brexiteers’ notions of sovereignty – means that the rights of EU citizens living in the UK cannot be guaranteed for the long-term, a central EU demand.
Added to this is the explosive disagreement over Britain’s exit payment. The sum that Theresa May sees as honouring her country’s outstanding commitments is not €60 billion – let alone the indigestible €100 billion bandied about after the ill-fated dinner.
Brexit MPs’ assurances of a “just you-wait-and-see” positive deal have relied on Germany’s decision to prioritise its lucrative auto trading interests with Britain. But these will pale when Merkel or Schulz conclude that their country will largely be stuck with the €10 billion “black hole” which the Jacques Delors Institute has predicted would gape in EU budgets as a result of the UK’s departure. Even its powerful car industry has deferred to the needs of preserving the integrity of the EU first.
This all makes it nigh on impossible for Britain and the EU to establish a legally binding framework from which to implement any negotiation, transitional or otherwise within the two years available.
The British may finally unite under the mantle of what they’ve been seeking to regain; their identity, which lies somewhere between Blitzkrieg bravery, pragmatism, and magnanimity towards spectacular failure.
So pre-emptive gloves have come off, as both sides attempt to fracture each other’s alliances; the Europeans, by catapulting bribes of EU membership over the fragile ramparts of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland (if it were to join its Republic cousin) and by dropping reminder leaflets over Gibraltar of Spain’s potential veto regarding the UK’s future relationship with the bloc.
Britain is looking to seduce in equal measure, albeit with throws of shorter reach. While it winks at the Netherlands Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, and his country’s strong trading relationship with Britain, he can only nod back, still licking his wounds from a turbulent election in which he scraped past Geert Wilders’ ultra-right wingers clamouring to leave the EU.
Could the catch-22 that is Brexit still be overcome? Will expediency prevail or will it be a case of who has least to lose if the deal fails and Britain defaults to WTO rules? Placating the demands of the EU as a consortium of countries that needs, in the words of EU Commissioner Donald Tusk, a “level playing field” and “a balance of rights and obligations”, may just not seem worth the effort, especially to British citizens of an ex-empire that, according to historian Stuart Laycock, has invaded or occupied at least 90% of the world since the second century AD.
So, with characteristic sangfroid, the British may finally unite, in full tabloid anti-EU battle cry, behind their belligerent leader and under the mantle of what they’ve been seeking to regain; their identity, which lies somewhere between Blitzkrieg bravery, pragmatism, and magnanimity towards spectacular failure.
As for incensed Remainers, there is no such thing as a cloth of gold on British soil, and certainly, no peace to be made with politicians willing to march them up to and over that cliff edge.