Editorial of the “World”. If the stakes were not so heavy, the umpteenth postponement, Sunday, December 13, of the deadline for negotiations on the future of trade relations between the United Kingdom and the twenty-seven States of the European Union would lend to smile, coming after so many “crucial deadlines” passed.
Rather than take note of the failure, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and the British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, announced the continuation of the discussions which, after nine exhausting months, still come up against two files: the means to avoid unfair British competition and the management of the fishery after the United Kingdom returns to exclusive rights in its national waters. The country, which formally broke with the EU on January 31, must leave the European single market on December 31, while wishing to retain free access.
Whatever the outcome of the interminable divorce proceedings triggered by the British referendum of June 23, 2016, Brexit is a historic mistake that all the peoples of Europe could pay, to varying degrees. But, beyond the apparently technical discussions of the moment, the conclusion or not of an agreement and the content of the latter will determine the extent of the damage inflicted, in particular to employment. However, the choice between “deal” and “no deal” essentially depends on political options.
Is Boris Johnson ready to inflict on his country the immense shock that the reestablishment of customs and tariff barriers would cause with a partner who accounts for almost half of its trade? Is he cynical enough to bet on the outbreak of nationalism that a break with Europe could cause among some voters, hoping that it would relegate criticisms of his erratic management of the pandemic to the background?
By repeating that the negotiation with the EU would be a walk in the park, by denying the unequal balance of power with the Twenty-Seven, Boris Johnson lied to the British. By claiming to be able to obtain the butter and the money from the butter, in other words both free access to the European market and the return to full sovereignty, the British Prime Minister has hampered the search for the compromise today if necessary. By drafting a law flouting some of his earlier commitments on Northern Ireland to the EU, he has eroded the confidence of the Twenty-Seven.
In this degraded context, Europeans have so far manifested a remarkable virtue: unity. Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron were right to object to the request for separate discussions made by Mr. Johnson. Faced with the lack of composure that constitutes the mobilization of the Royal Navy to protect the “British fish”, the Twenty-Seven must continue to demonstrate their quiet strength. The preservation of the single European market, which is the basis of their collective power, is a sine qua non for a future agreement.
It is to be hoped that, beyond a logical dramatization at the end of the negotiations, a compromise will be reached on a mechanism of control, arbitration and sanction in the event of breach of the principle of fair competition by the British. Such an accommodation would make it possible to preserve the fluidity of trade and the innumerable jobs it generates. Far from being “Formidable” (“Wonderful “), As Mr Johnson trumpets, a” no deal “would represent a terrible failure. We must therefore wish for an agreement. But not at any cost. For Europeans, the worst would be to have accepted an uncontrollable competitor at their doorstep.
