The UK's long-drawn-out exit from the EU (the use of chemical weapons against Russian citizens on its territory with their subsequent abduction, probable murder and an obscene scandal around this atrocity) is over.

Officially, England (in Russian, unlike English, this word means both part of the country and the country as a whole) withdrew from the EU on January 31, but the inability of the parties to agree on the terms of Brexit led to the extension of the application of European norms until the end of 2020.

There are many pitfalls (which are at least the issues of state support, fishing and the preservation of free communication between Ireland and its northern part belonging to England), and if an agreement is not reached within a reasonable time (while this is the beginning of November), from January 1, only WTO norms.

This means an increase in customs tariffs, which will hit the British economy again.

Agreements are hampered not only by objective obstacles caused by the "coronabesy", but also by interests - both political and economic.

British manufacturers, especially in the military-industrial complex, have a significant share in the pan-European programs - and continental competitors will gladly, only intensified by the lack of demand, take their market share for themselves.

At the same time, the forced transformation of Britain into a “financial boutique” suppressed its real sector and ensured its dependence on imports, primarily European ones.

Thus, the European Union will be able to quickly abandon British goods, and for England a similar reorientation of supplies will be difficult.

Therefore, the EU does not want to meet Britain that rejected it: revenge is a dish that is served in negotiations.

Recall: the reason for England's refusal from the European Union was the impotence of the European bureaucracy, which was going to seriously consider Obama's proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which is deadly for the EU.

In addition to the unbearable free trade zone for Europeans with the United States, Canada and Mexico, this partnership de facto turned European states into regional representations of global, primarily American corporations (through a specific mechanism for settling trade disputes, in which representatives of corporations, not states, were arbitrators) ...

In addition to the thirst for profit, which is especially valuable in a crisis, the members of the European Union are united by the intention to make the example of England as instructive as possible in order to reliably discourage the desire to break out of the yoke of the utterly ideologized Brussels bureaucracy from everyone who is at least theoretically capable of thinking about it.

After all, the EU is a zone of guaranteed profits for corporations of its developed part, and countries that do not have the specifics of Britain, in case of exit, will reduce the profits of these corporations.

The internal conflict in England itself is also important: the exit from the EU deals another blow to its real sector (and to Scotland with its latent separatism, where at least half of British industry is concentrated), strengthening the dominance of financial speculators.

This is also why Macron demonstrates rigidity.

Thus, the Secretary of State under the Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Clement Bon, pointed out that it is inadmissible for the EU to lose calm and make "unprofitable concessions, unprofitable compromises."

The point is not only in the differences between the French and English branches of this great family, but also in the unity of its strategic interests, which requires a general strengthening of the position of finance capital - including in England.

And for this, the British real sector must be further weakened.

Another reason for Macron's intransigence is the struggle for European leadership against the outgoing Merkel and Germany in general, which, after the victory of the Greens in 2021, will face the rejection of cheap Russian energy resources and deindustrialization in the interests of the United States and all the same global speculative capital.

It is to his prospects on both sides of the English Channel that the words of Boris Johnson, seemingly absorbed by the medical and economic crises, refer: “things will go very well” even in the conditions of “complete autonomy” of British business from the EU.

And the intention of the leaders of the EU member states to insist during its summit in Brussels on October 15-16 on toughening the deal with England strengthens the position of not only continental Europe at the expense of its eternal enemy, but also the financial capital of Britain itself - at the expense of its real sector.

The strategic position of the City of London, despite the likely transfer of some operations to the continent, will improve from the liberation from European intrigues and attempts to save the sinking Southern (not to mention Eastern) Europe.

Therefore, in the light of the long-term threat of a civil war in the United States, England, following the "financial bottom" after the "hard" Brexit, along with Switzerland, can become a coveted "safe haven" for the capital of the whole world.

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