Last effort to stay British

British Prime Minister Theresa May said that London has every chance to bury Brexit and stay in the EU. Ignoring the results of the referendum held in June 2016, which was decided by a majority of votes to leave the union. The problem is that May does not succeed (at least at the time of writing these lines) to achieve an exit plan agreed to by the parliament in the EU, thereby meeting the demands of this organization.

Meanwhile, on April 12, according to the insistence of the leadership of the European Commission, May should submit a draft “deal” with the European Union approved by the parliament. If this does not happen and May arrives at the EU summit on April 10 empty-handed, then in this case two options are possible - both unfavorable for the prime minister and her party.

Either the UK’s withdrawal from the EU without a “deal”, which means extremely tough economic requirements, in particular the refusal of duty-free export of British goods to Europe, problems with the activities of British financial organizations on the continent, and most importantly a lot of difficulties in the infrastructure cooperation of Britain and Europe. That is a big problem for the two British exclaves - Northern Ireland and Gibraltar - and the threat to the provision of British military bases in Cyprus.

In general, whatever one may say, some kind of “deal” with a united Europe is needed, but it can only be achieved on the basis of partial diplomatic capitulation. Any “soft” brexit would mean a violation of the principles for which the UK decided on such a radical statement of its independence. In fact, it is possible for a while to remain in the Customs Union with the EU, to obey the trade and immigration norms of the union, but at the same time lose the right to influence European politics. Usually such a situation is compared with the situation in the EU Norway - a country that maintains its independence, but at the same time integrated into a common market with Europe.

But it would be appropriate to recall here the very Euro-Association, which President Viktor Yanukovych, who was overthrown by the Maidan, was going to sign with the EU. Of course, there is some difference: even in the case of “soft” Brexit, Great Britain still acquired the right to join other free trade zones, while Ukraine actually lost the same right. But by and large we are talking about something similar and imply subordination to someone else’s rules in the absence of an opportunity to influence these rules, and such a paradoxical acquisition of independence through its loss for some, say, not very long time, of course, is perceived by all major breakthroughs offensive.

But last week, the main point highlighted by all the experts was an unexpected chance to achieve a desired compromise.

The chance is that May, if she wants to somehow cut this Gordian knot, you need to enter into an agreement with Labor leader Jeremy Corbin and accept his Brexit conditions - that is, the mandatory Customs Union at least until 2020, the absence of the border with Ireland , guarantees of workers' rights, environmental standards.

If such an agreement with political opponents is reached in the near future, the plan for “soft” Brexit will be approved by the House of Commons, and the unpleasant prospects for a second referendum, advocated by some Labor Party and opponents of Brexit from other parties, will be avoided.

In a curious way, the scenario of the country's participation in the elections to the European Parliament, which will take place from May 23 to 24, seems to be even more terrible to the conservative establishment. In this case, it seems, the victory is likely to go to the far-right parties, reproaching the Tories for delaying Brexit.

If you step back from all this legislative fuss and look at what is happening in general, then we can conclude that what is actually being decided now in the UK. I think we are really talking about two things.

First, about the fate of the oldest British political party, that is, the Tories, and about the country's party system as a whole. When the Laborites changed the Whig Liberals as one of the two largest parties at the beginning of the 20th century, this turn was a precursor to the death of the British Empire. Of course, not the main reason, but one of the factors.

The deviation of the political spectrum became a sign of entering the political scene of classes who did not want to sacrifice their material well-being to the interests of the state. What will happen if the conservatives, who will be pressed against, say, more radical nationalists or national populists, will likewise fade into the background? But such an opportunity does not seem incredible today, when the Tory party does not demonstrate unity and solidarity, including in terms of supporting its leader.

Secondly, something much more important is at stake, namely the fate of European democracy. Or, in any case, the British democracy, the oldest in Europe. A referendum is such a thing to which it is better not to resort or to resort as little as possible. But if a referendum is held, you want it or not, but you need to act in accordance with its outcome, no matter how unpleasant they are. This is essentially the main axiom from which Teresa May comes.

Here's the thing here. Great Britain is a country with an elite that is very opaque to ordinary citizens. Here is a kind of communication center - several overlapping communities of the Euro-Atlantic world: financial, intelligence, aristocratic. London is filled with high-ranking and wealthy immigrants from around the world, the largest financial center is located here, and shares of all global companies are put up for auction.

Obviously, Brexit itself was in many respects an expression of protest by the British against this “global London”, which was just quite pleased with the country's presence in the EU and voted for the most part against Brexit.

And if we now make it clear to the British that their unambiguously expressed will was ignored by these very "opaque" elites with their obscure priorities, then this story will end with some new electoral revolution that can finally bring down the party establishment.

Already such a leader as Jeremy Corbin, with his Euro-skepticism and American-phobia, seems like a strange figure to Britain. We can expect even less familiar actors to appear on the political scene, especially since the UK independence party continues to exist, and its former leader Nigel Faraj created the Brexit party and goes into battle again.

In the language of British politics, this fear of quiet English rebellion is called "loyalty to the democratic pact between the elites and the people." Of course, it would be much easier to create a financial center like the City of London in an authoritarian country — a similar referendum is hardly possible in Hong Kong. But if Britain ceases to be a democracy, the oldest and most stable in the world, it will be a blow worse than the collapse of the empire.

In the end, the British Empire, unlike the British democracy, was not the first and not the last. So the results of the referendum must be implemented at any cost, and any “last chance” will have to be used. Even if the bright prospects, looming in 2016, will be postponed for another year or two, and even for a more distant period. But, admittedly, such disappointment befalls all fighters for independence at any time.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.