|
UK’s Delusional Threats to Europe over
‘Hard Brexit'
By Finian Cunningham
January 20, 2017 "Information
Clearing House"
- "SCF"-
Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May delivered
her much-anticipated speech on Brexit this week, and it
was suffused with delusions of grandeur. When are
British leaders going to realize that their days of
imperial greatness are long gone? Listening to May,
however, one would think that the world’s map was still
splattered in red, white and blue colors of the Union
Jack – otherwise known by former colonial subjects as
the Butcher’s Apron.
The Conservative prime minister gave a
bravado speech that
heralded a blissful, prosperous future for «global
Britain». May said that Britain was now open for free
trade with the rest of the world, after having voted in
a referendum last June to quit the European Union, after
43 years of membership.
Finally, after seven months of dithering
and confusion on the matter, May declared that Britain
would henceforth be seeking a «hard Brexit», whereby the
United Kingdom would no longer seek to be part of the
EU’s single market. It would therefore be free from
obligations concerning migration and free movement of
European citizens. That is, Britain would gain full
control of its borders. A «soft Brexit» option would
have involved a compromise between retaining
single-market membership and accepting a degree of open
borders.
No way. Theresa May was at last
supposedly giving clarity on Britain’s position, saying
there would be «no half measures, no half in, half out…
Brexit means Brexit». The Financial Times
approved of her upbeat message with the headline: «No
more Theresa Maybe».
Listening to May’s prognosis of glowing
prospects for «global Britain» – trading with the US,
Canada, China, India and the Persian Gulf among others
as bilateral partners – makes one wonder why Britain
ever bothered joining the EU’s single market back in
1988, as her predecessor Margaret Thatcher had zealously
committed to (15 years after its original accession to
the European Economic Community, the precursor of the EU.)
Perhaps it has something do with the fact
that nearly 50 per cent of the UK’s exports go to EU
markets – free from any trade barriers. How Britain’s
exports will fair in a global marketplace of cut-throat
trade tariffs is a moot question.
According to the British government it’s
all going to be rosy. That, by the way, wasn’t May’s
position prior to the referendum. She campaigned for
remaining in the EU and in doing so she had predicted
that leaving the bloc would spell economic disaster for
Britain. All that doom seems to have dramatically
disappeared now in May’s apparently revised upbeat world
outlook, without providing an explanation for her
U-turn.
Here’s the thing: Downing Street’s
supposed announcement of clarity on the Brexit this week
raises, on the contrary, even more befuddling questions.
May is aiming to conclude Brexit negotiations in two
years with the European Commission based in Brussels.
But that timescale is impossibly optimistic. Only a few
weeks ago, her top diplomat charged with negotiating the
Brexit was forced to resign because he dared to warn
that a separation deal would take up to 10 years to
finalize. And that longer-term view is probably a
realistic assessment. For instance, it took Canada seven
years to recently conclude a free-trade pact with the
EU. For Britain, with many more legal entanglements to
resolve, any less timeframe seems in the realm of
«daydreams» – as some EU politicians caustically
remarked following May’s speech this week.
Britain’s Foreign Minister Boris Johnson
can crow all he likes that «the world is queuing up to
do business with Britain». One of those potentially new
trade partners is Britain’s old colony, the United
States of America. Following President Donald Trump’s
welcoming remarks for a «quick trade deal» with Britain
earlier this week, there was much excitement from
Johnson and other Brexiteers that a new lucrative
horizon was indeed dawning.
The harsh reality is that Britain will be
technically and legally a member of the EU until it
concludes departure negotiations that could several
years. Under those circumstances, as several EU
politicians have pointed out, Britain will not be free
to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with the US or
any other nation. That means that Britain will not be
able to gallop off into supposed new trade deals with
the US, China or anyone else, until it finishes its no
doubt protracted divorce proceedings with the EU.
The Brexit process is going to be a rude
awakening for British leaders who seem to harbor
delusions about Britain’s stature in the world.
This delusional thinking was revealed
when Theresa May issued a barely veiled warning to the
EU that Britain would not accept a «punitive» Brexit
deal.
Despite her speech opening with charming
talk of Britain being the best of friends with Europe,
May drew a dagger towards the end.
«I know there are some voices calling for
a punitive deal that punishes Britain and discourages
other countries from taking the same path. That would be
an act of calamitous self-harm for the countries of
Europe. And it would not be the act of a friend,» said
the British premier.
With a foreboding tone, she added:
«Britain would not – indeed we could not – accept such
an approach. And while I am confident that this scenario
need never arise – while I am sure a positive agreement
can be reached – I am equally clear that no deal for
Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.»
It was a glinting threat from May, akin
to flashing a knife at the EU.
Earlier, May said in contradictory
fashion that while Britain was leaving the single
market, at the same time it was demanding «full access
to markets as an associate member to make trading as
frictionless as possible».
So, only in a rhetorical sense is the
British government declaring a «hard Brexit» by
purportedly «leaving the single market». For all intents
and purposes, however, the British still want «full
access» to the market, as May stipulated in her speech.
And this privilege is to be had at the same time that
Britain takes full control of its borders over EU
migration.
That sounds like Britain wanting to have
its cake and eating it. Supposedly being out of the
market, but still in it for all practical purposes,
while pulling up the draw bridge on the rest of Europe.
Moreover, the British prime minister is declaring that
if Britain does not get «full access» it will be
perceived as «punitive» – and then in that case her
country will «walk away» from negotiations.
Her haughty attitude sparked outrage
across the EU. Guy Verhofstadt, the EU Parliament’s
point man on Brexit, reportedly fumed
that Britain’s «days of cherrypicking and a la carte
Europe are over».
Tomas Prouza, the Czech’s EU minister, noted sardonically
of the British position: «Trade as free as possible,
full control of immigration… where’s the give for all
the take?»
What May was alluding to in her threat of
walking away was that Britain would undercut the EU by
slashing corporation tax, thereby luring foreign
companies away from continental Europe to set up shop in
Britain. That is, turning Britain into a tax haven to
cheat the rest of Europe.
May also hinted that Britain’s military
forces in NATO might be pulled out of Poland and the
Baltic states, which would have the effect of
destabilizing these EU members, given their congenital
paranoia over alleged Russian aggression.
The British government’s threats to the
EU stems from a misplaced arrogant attitude of a
has-been world power, which somehow still thinks that it
can pontificate to other, perceived lesser nations.
With a ballooning trade deficit with
Europe and an all-but extinct industrial base, the only
asset that the UK can claim is its City of London global
financial center – which accounts for 80 per cent of its
national economy. Despite Theresa May’s supercilious
tone, Britain will find that it needs Europe a lot more
than Europe needs Britain. And if cut loose harshly, the
former Great Britain is in no industrial shape to ply
the global markets as it once did with the backing of
its colonial armies of occupation.
Britain’s «hard Brexit» is all «hard
talk» belying typical British subterfuge to wheedle
self-serving concessions. Such conceited British
attitude will only stiffen EU resolve to make minimal
trade concessions in the final separation. If the
British are seen to get a «cherry-picked» deal of access
to the single market, yet be able to spurn any
immigration, that would be tantamount to giving an exit
license for other members of the EU to do likewise. And
given the level of Euro-skepticism rising across Europe,
Brussels and other pro-EU governments must, of their own
necessity, act sternly towards Britain in its divorce
arrangement.
Britain can indeed expect a «hard Brexit».
On much harder terms from the EU than delusional British
politicians are arrogantly demanding. Less Rule
Britannia; more like Fool Britannia. |
