Future historians will certainly note in their writings that the turning point of the 21st century was the year 2016, when supporters of the country's exit from the EU unexpectedly won the referendum in the UK, and the “impossible” Donald Trump became the US president.
For the first time in several decades, the liberal-globalist steam rink named after George Soros, enthusiastically crushing all the alternative paths of development of Western civilization, ran into an obstacle that was too tough for him. Leaning against Brexit and Trump, the skating rink stalled, desperately spraying liquid dirt in all directions from under the mighty rollers.
There was enough dirt to seriously complicate the life of the 45th president of the United States and to resign the leader of the British conservatives Theresa May. But still not enough to turn the tide: Trump’s impeachment process was eventually launched not because of the “Russian case”, but because of a call to the President of Ukraine, which is not only quite comical, but also completely hopeless - the US Senate, where the majority - still among the Republicans, it is guaranteed to bury the Democrats’ attempt to take power from the president. And in the UK, the Tories, overcoming the crisis and getting rid of Theresa May, who did not become the “new Thatcher”, chose Boris Johnson, the leader of the “jester” and “parsley,” who led the party to a crushing victory in the early parliamentary elections. And now Brexit, the reality of which many have already ceased to believe, is guaranteed to take place.
The phenomenon of “disbelief in Brexit” is akin to a blindness that did not allow political scientists and journalists to believe in the possibility of Trump’s victory in the 2016 elections until the very end. So what, did some kind of ardent supporters of traditional values from the English hinterland vote for leaving the EU? All the same, no one will allow these old-school racists and xenophobes to dictate their will to the tolerant inhabitants of megacities who advocate a world without borders and nations. If, due to some unfortunate mistake, they managed to impose their choice on the progressive British, then the latter still have tools that will reset the results of the Brexit referendum. For example, parliament will vote for a second referendum. Or sensible politicians on both sides of the English Channel will "chat" the process of negotiations on Britain’s exit from the EU to complete senselessness. It doesn’t matter how - not by washing, so by skating - but Misty Albion will remain in the European Union, and the opponents of globalization in Brussels will have to wipe themselves.
Something like that was reasoned by many both in Britain and abroad just recently, until the day when it became known that Boris Johnson and his conservatives had not just a majority in parliament, but the largest parliamentary majority since 1987. And 44% obtained by the Tories in these elections, the conservative party for the last time managed to get only in 1979, when the premiere was "Iron Maggie" Thatcher.
Johnson's brilliant victory and his party had many reasons. Dr. Matthew Goodwin of the University of Kent has at least nine, but neatly bypasses the main one. He writes only that Johnson managed to consolidate the votes of all voters who supported Britain’s exit from the EU (Goodwin cites figures from which it follows that not only conservatives voted for Johnson’s party, but also 25% of the Labor Party - supporters of Brexit, as well as 19% of those who were considered opponents of the "divorce" with Brussels). The conclusion suggests itself, which Goodwin for some reason does not do: despite all the efforts of the liberal media, convincing the public that the victory of the supporters of Brexit in the referendum was "random", most Britons still seek to free themselves from the stuffy embrace of the European Union. Maybe some of them came to this idea as a result of a three-year stomp on a place that everyone is already tired of and who Johnson promises to put an end to. But, anyway, Britain definitely wants to leave - and Britain will leave.
This departure, however, will be carried out in stages and, most likely, will take almost a whole year. However, this is already a very specific “road map”, according to which you can navigate.
On January 29 or 30, the European Parliament must approve the Brexit agreement at a session in Brussels. However, this can happen earlier, on January 14 or 15, at a plenary meeting in Strasbourg. There is no doubt that EP deputies will vote for the agreement - negotiations and consultations on this topic have been conducted with the European Parliament for two years, and there are practically no disputed issues there.
January 31 - Great Britain officially leaves the EU. On this day in Europe, even those who initially opposed Brexitis will breathe a sigh of relief - too much blood spoiled them with a four-year-long process, constant delays and delays. “A terrible end is better than horror without end,” the British parliamentarians decided, voting for a law prohibiting the extension of the country's exit from the European Union after January 31.
In February, the European Commission in Brussels will ask the governments of the EU member states for a mandate to negotiate a free trade agreement with the UK. Here complications may arise.
It has not yet been decided which specific areas of the economy will be regulated by the new agreement. And meanwhile, a little more than everything depends on it: trade agreements between the EU and third countries (for example, the USA or Canada) have been worked out for years, all roughnesses and contentious issues were literally licked there, and an agreement between Great Britain and the EU should be prepared and concluded before end of 2020
At the same time, there is no single point of view in Brussels whether this agreement should be a package, that is, cover all areas of trade relations without exception, or whether EU governments will have to negotiate separately with London on some points. The package option is more beneficial for the EU, while London insists on separate negotiations on issues such as fishing or air travel. One way or another, there is not much time to solve these problems - on February 25, the governments of the EU member states must approve the mandate of the European Commission to negotiate with the British government on the issues of a free trade agreement. And a month later, on March 26-27, the summit in Brussels will discuss the progress achieved in these negotiations. Unless, of course, such progress is achieved. The European bureaucrats are well aware that for the month, most likely, nothing will be decided, so the next summit is scheduled for June 18-19. However, by this time there may not yet be real progress in the negotiations. In Brussels, over the past few months they have repeatedly stated that the 11 months that Johnson allowed to negotiate is too short and unrealistic.
Therefore, a mid-level meeting between the EU leadership and the UK government is planned for mid-June. Most likely, Johnson himself will represent Albion, and the EU is the new head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. According to Bloomberg, this meeting "could be the political moment of truth to decide whether to extend the transition period after 2020."
Von der Leyen herself explicitly spoke out in favor of the extension. “I am very worried about the limited time that we have. This is a question not only of negotiations on a free trade agreement, but also of many other topics, ” she said in a recent interview with the French business newspaper Les Echos, adding that it would be“ necessary ”to agree on a prolongation of the transition period.
In London, however, they are well aware that this will mean repeating the three-year-old comedy that Brussels played with Theresa May and which ultimately cost her the prime minister's seat.
Moreover: the European bureaucrats especially do not hide that their main task is to return the “prodigal daughter" back to the family. Last Thursday, Ursula von der Leyen’s deputy, France Timmermans, addressed the British people with a “love letter” (printed in The Guardian), in which he compared Brexit to a family quarrel. “You decided to go out,” Timmermans wrote. “It breaks my heart, but I respect this decision ... We will not go anywhere and will always gladly accept your return . ”
Surprisingly, in Brussels they still cannot reconcile with the fact that Great Britain will leave the European Union, and are not ready to believe that the decision made by the people of the United Kingdom at a referendum in June 2016 is final and cannot be appealed. However, this is exactly what Boris Johnson intends to prove to the European bureaucrats. In fact, it is not so much about the exit of a particular country from the EU, but about the inviolability of the principles of democracy as such. And, I must admit, the three-year fuss of the Brussels "sages", who are struggling to subject these principles to revision, does not look too pretty.
We return, however, to the calendar. After the summit in mid-June, the date for June 30 is set as the deadline for deciding whether to extend the transition period for concluding a free trade agreement for one or two years. If at this point the parties do not reach consensus (and Johnson’s firm position, now relying on a confident majority in parliament, leaves little chance for the supporters of the extension), Brussels will have two options, and both are bad. The first is, nevertheless, to conclude at least some kind of agreement with London by December 31, 2020, and the second is to admit what has frightened the European citizen over the past years, that is, Britain’s exit from the EU “without a deal”.
In the latter case, the United Kingdom will leave the European Union at the very beginning of 2021. On the first day of the new, 2021, all European rules and laws will cease to apply for the British. At the border there will be customs and visa controls. But is all this so scary as opponents of Brexit draw in their articles?
Take finance for example. In November last year, the Bank of England predicted that in the case of “hard brexit”, the pound will fall by 25% and it will become much cheaper than the dollar. But here’s what really happened: immediately after the victory of the Johnson party in the December 12 election, the pound against the dollar began to rise and the next day rose by 1.2%. He continued to grow at the beginning of next week, rising to 1.3434 dollars per pound.
“There will be a massive outflow of people from the country,” the opponents of Brexitis scare. Surely. But what kind of people will they be? Basically, immigrants and refugees, whose dominance has become one of the main reasons for the victory in a referendum of supporters of Britain's exit from the EU.
The main result of Brexit, which - now without a doubt - will take place in 2020, will be the obvious defeat of the globalist model, which until recently seemed uncontested. But look, there was a charge on her, albeit in the clown guise of the disheveled Prime Minister Johnson.
And if Trump wins again in the US presidential election in 2020 - he has every chance for this - the liberal globalists will only have to grit their teeth with anger. Well, let them creak - do not mind!
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.