The United Kingdom embraced political imagination in June 2016, when a small majority of respondents voted for Britain to leave the EU in favor of leaving. This was clear to some at the time. Not long after the vote, for example, supporters of Britain's exit from the union or what has become known as the «BRICAST», Britain will provide £ 350 million a week for spending on health services, which is now facing a significant shortage of staff. But now that the terms of the BRICCET have been announced, the scope of this fantasy is clear to everyone.
The exit campaign was based on the assumption that the UK would retain most of the advantages of staying in the single European market, which allows for free trade in goods and services across the continent, without being paid to or complied with the EU treasury. At the same time, politicians argued that free trade deals with other countries could be negotiated to boost British exports and reduce the cost of their imports.
But EU officials feared that if the UK were to make such a deal, other countries would follow suit, posing an existential threat to the EU. Neither side wanted a "tough" exit, as the UK would have left without an agreement, but the European Union's guiding principle in these negotiations has forced London to suffer losses if it leaves.
Upper hand
For some time, London thought it would have the upper hand in the negotiations, so exports across the English channel from Europe would continue to flow, not least German auto parts. But the EU has the real advantage: its member states can live more easily, without free access to British markets, unlike the United Kingdom, which will suffer without reaching the European market. However, European countries are still part of a single market of about 450 million people. By contrast, the United Kingdom has little hope of concluding new trade agreements with faraway countries around the world. The Commonwealth is nothing more than a fig leaf covering national self-interest, at a time when the United States is under President Donald Trump; to a protective trend.
An intangible reality
This reality is still not palpable for those living in imaginary spaces, which have become characteristic of British politics. On the right, supporters of the "strict" exit denounce the agreement reached by Prime Minister Teresa Mae, claiming that he is devoting "dependency" to Europe, as if there is something better to offer. On the left, the Labor Party confirmed that it would agree to Britain's exit from the EU; as many traditional working-class voters wanted, but only if the terms offered were good; such as those enjoyed by the UK while in the EU. Labor leader Jeremy Corbin was not enthusiastic about European integration, and his party's goal was to tread a tightrope among working-class voters and many pro-EU supporters who supported the party in the recent elections. If we look at it in the cold, cold daylight, the politics of the party are meaningless;
Government chaos
Of course, the main objective of the party's leadership is not related to Britain's departure from the Union. To force the Conservative government to hold another general election, an election Labor hopes to win despite its simple lead in opinion polls, in the light of the chaos that has plagued Teresa's government.
The elections have already had a significant impact on the track. Without anything else, the decision that proved to be very crucial to the new agreement, which could be fatal to the current British government, was taken in April 2017, when May chose to call for general elections before they were necessary. Earlier this year, the Conservative Party had a big chance in opinion polls, and seemed to be an opportunity to strengthen its majority. Instead, after a courageous campaign in which many of those who wanted to stay in the EU ran for revenge from the Labor Party, the Conservatives won a few seats in parliament and had to form a narrow coalition with the Unionist Democratic Party for government.
The DUP is a small party, with considerable weight in the divided Northern Ireland district. After the entity suddenly entered into a coalition with the Conservatives, it began to express strong views throughout Northern Ireland that there should be no barriers to the flow of trade or people across its border with the Republic of Ireland to the south. As a result, there should be no such border at sea between Northern Ireland and the British mainland.
Remove restrictions
Freedom of movement was the first priority of the Republic of Ireland, as the removal of border controls was the focus of the 1998 Agreement, which led to peace in Northern Ireland. To this end, the new Prime Minister, Leo Varadkar, launched a successful campaign to ensure that the freedom of borders remains a red line for the EU in Britain's exit negotiations. Despite the many issues raised by BRICST for both sides, the main issue, from which the agreement could have been stalled, has become how to ensure that there are no "thorny" borders between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
After several battles, the final agreement dealt with this issue, with the aim of securing the free flow of goods and people between the north and south of the Irish island in the end, accompanied by a "backing" of the President stating that the UK as a whole would remain in the Customs Union with the EU. That this ambition has been achieved. The Customs Union allows free flow of goods across borders, but comes with the requirement that London comply with a set of EU regulations on government assistance to companies, taxes, labor standards and other matters while abstaining from negotiating trade and concluding agreements with other countries.
This support is what Brecht's supporters call treason. They fear, not without reason, that the UK will remain for decades, if not decades, hostage to the European Customs Union, and the accompanying rules to which the British no longer have an opinion. As in the past, the "Irish Question" brings panic to British politics.
Absence of alternative
With all the frustrations of the European Union, their situation is reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher's famous words: "There is no alternative." Mae is not Thatcher, and it is not clear that she has benefited well from the ministers, who chose them to negotiate the exit of Britain from the European Union. Given the realities of geopolitics, Teresa Mae is unlikely to get a better deal. There is broad agreement that withdrawal without an agreement would create chaos, not only in the docks of English Channel ports, but in the British economy as a whole.
At this stage, no one knows whether the prime minister survived the political turmoil caused by the announcement of the deal, or indeed, if she could get the approval of the highly divided parliament. Within the Conservatives, Jacob Reese Mug, an outspoken advocate, called for a no-confidence vote for the prime minister. For the United Kingdom, this is not a particularly good deal, which all sides are quick to highlight. Moreover, the BRICCET is similar to what those who voted to leave the EU in 2016 thought they had obtained.
There are frustrations on the other side of the sea, too. Many EU Member States have reservations about the terms of the Convention; they remain concerned that the Union's regulations, which will be governed by the United Kingdom, are not strong enough. Their fear is that the British will establish a low-tax economy, wages and cost, and then export cheaper products across their borders so that their European partners can not compete with them. This is also a fantasy, because Britain has a more advanced economy than many EU member states, but this is a deal that must be unanimously approved by those countries.
In short, anyone who wants to produce a political horror film can not find a better conspiracy than Britain and the European Union. We do not yet know how this film will end. At least, because the texts from which most of the main political "representatives" are read have nothing to do with reality.
- Anyone who wants to produce a political horror film can not find a better conspiracy than Britain and the European Union. We do not yet know how this film will end . At least, because the texts from which most of the main political "representatives" are read have nothing to do with reality.
Peter Hall is a political writer and writer