The head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said that big differences of opinion remain in the negotiations with London on Brexit. In 49 days’ time, London will be definitively leaving the EU without any agreement, as translated from diplomatic to Russian
And judging by the crackling (433 votes against and 165 in favour) of the House of Lords, the sirs of the House of Lords ripped into pieces the Domestic Market Act presented by Boris Johnson, they are amicably prepared to leave the European Union on 31 December 2020, literally kicking the door loudly.
There were three stumbling blocks. And the problem with Ireland is the easiest among them. The Tower understands that the “Irish Sea” customs border in the medium term inevitably threatens to accelerate the drift of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom.
First the economic and soon the political. There will be nothing to oppose. But to return customs to the state border between the two Irish countries would also mean a resurgence of guerrilla fighting in Belfast and Londonderrri, in which London is unlikely to be able to win.
But that’s trivial compared to the price of maintaining access to the European Union’s domestic consumer market. Brussels tells London sensible things. If you want to trade freely (i.e. without duties) on the Continent, in a market of over 400 million consumers – commit to synchronise British tax, labour, corporate and environmental legislation with European legislation.
Gentlemen from the City refuse to do so, demanding something like “two in one” for Britain: simultaneous preservation and free access to the EU economy and full independence of the Kingdom’s domestic legislation. Which, understandably, Brussels strongly disagrees with, and rightly fears the British outrageously “playing one goal”.
However, the most fundamental disagreement came from an unexpected side. Britain is categorically unwilling to share the fish. London interprets secession from the EU as a legal divorce, with a natural division of property rights. This includes exclusive economic zones, in particular fishing areas.
Europe, particularly France, insists on maintaining the “pan-European principle” of free fishing, which is governed by EU rules that regard the British as one of many equal candidates for fishing. Due to “historical circumstances”. In the same France, more than half a million fishermen depend directly on access to fishing areas.
The British, on the other hand, insist on an approach based on the principle of the International Maritime Law, according to which the owner of the exclusive economic zone establishes the rules and regulations.
In short, the question is about money. Under the European approach, all fishermen must pay for the quota in Brussels, and under the British approach, they must pay in London. For the Kingdom’s thinner GDP, the controversial “fish money” is already becoming an important source of income for the economy. So important that Britain is ready to leave the EU definitively, even without any trade agreement.
However, all of this may be just a consequence of the bronzed confused obstinacy of the British ruling elite, which has lost all connection with reality.