The United Kingdom has a deadline. By October 31, that is, in less than two months, the kingdom is obliged to clean the premises in good or bad way and leave the European Union.

Continental Europeans can be understood. For more than three years, during which the mistress of the seas has disappeared, and has never been able to understand, and in general it is not clear what she wants, people who are much more meek and complacent than Brussels bureaucrats can bring to white heat. With the advent of the fervent Boris Johnson as British prime minister, the position of the continent that the original islanders bothered everyone worse than the bitter radish could only get worse.

What is characteristic here is that Britain, which in the past possessed unsurpassed skill in dividing and dominating, was not able to form at least some pro-British coalition within the EU in the current issue. On the issue of Brexit, the EU has unanimously agreed that, given the European integration customs, it is worth a lot.

As a result, Britain achieved brilliant isolation. No one in Europe wants to deal with her (as far as the seer de Gaulle was right 60 years ago when he didn’t let the kingdom enter the Common Market without foreseeing anything good), dreaming only of ending all this as soon as possible tricky story.

But help came from the former British colonies that had become the United States. In accordance with the words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty, the US administration turned to Britain:

... all thirsty to breathe freely, abandoned in need,

From the cramped shores of the persecuted, poor and orphans.

So send them homeless and exhausted to me

I raise my torch at the golden gate!

President Trump has long supported the separation of the persecuted, poor and orphans from the EU, especially since he himself does not harbor any good feelings for the EU. A month ago, he once again pointed out to his British counterpart: the United States will do its best to make Brexit a loaf for the island, an alliance. “The United States and Britain will begin negotiations on an extensive free trade agreement immediately after the withdrawal of London from the EU. Brexit offers an unprecedented opportunity for economic cooperation between the US and the UK, so negotiations should begin as soon as possible after the country's exit from the EU. ”

Trump can be understood: in his place everyone would do that. London’s foreign policy position is extremely weakened, domestic policy - as evidenced by the rather strong decision of Prime Minister Johnson to suspend the parliament - is also not brilliant.

Such a confused partner is ideal for negotiating “unprecedented opportunities” on American terms. Which, as we know from many precedents, are quite tough. Trump just softly weaves, and what Johnson will sleep is another question.

Now the position of the United States is rather to observe the maturation of the issue and the maturation of the client, as evidenced by the joint speech of Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar and US Vice President Mike Pence. Varadkar insisted on maintaining a transparent border between British Northern Ireland and the rest of the island, which, if Britain left the EU, would mean the appearance of an official customs hole in the border of the kingdom - why then leave?

Pence, in turn, took the position of a wise rabbi, that is, “both you are right, Reb Mendel, and you are right, Reb Leiser,” and when the student asks him how can the calf belong to both Reb Mendel and Reb Leiser, he answers: "And you're right, Menuhim." The meaning of Pence’s speeches that “the United States will urge London, Dublin and Brussels to continue negotiations in order to reach an agreement” in which the irreconcilable interests of Ireland and Britain would be respected can only be so.

So Boris Johnson has the right to somersault freely, and the United States will be a benevolent, but an outside observer. But when Brexit nevertheless happens, then the music will go wrong: we will dance the forest and mountains and open up unprecedented opportunities. Who would doubt that.

The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.