[ad_1]
Negotiations to find an agreement after the United Kingdom left the EU yesterday they didn’t look particularly promising. Honestly, it is not clear how the United Kingdom can accept the European Union’s proposals without compromising its economic and fiscal independence, because in all the proposals it would be substantially subject to the decisions taken in Brussels indefinitely. However, this is not the issue we would like to emphasize.
Any analysis of the costs and benefits of a no-deal exit begins with an unproven assumption. The untested assumption is this: all members of the Union under the flag of Europe will be cohesive in the showdown / showdown with Great Britain. In this case, London would have to face the world’s largest trading bloc and suffer the consequences in the form of disruptions in the distribution chain, rising food prices, shortages of medicines, etc., in a narrative that, in these latitudes It inevitably suffers, in a sense, from a climate of propaganda; and obviously the same and the opposite in London.
The unproven assumption is the cohesion of member countries after a no-deal breakup. Everything instead would lead us to think that above all in case of No deal Several Member States would try to distance themselves so as not to lose a partner who is a net importer in the Union and has a financial and capital center that is unmatched in continental Europe. As with CO2 emissions, for the Month and for many other issues, think about immigration, the cohesion of the members of the European Union is only one hope. In the case of Great Britain and leaving the Union, the incentives for states to pursue “national” goals would be much greater given the geopolitical implications; Britain existed long before the European Union and has a much more “privileged” position in NATO than any other European member.
The divisions between the member countries would not appear either immediately or in Brussels; however, when the time came for individual states to ratify terms, perhaps punitive, towards Great Britain, they would appear clearly, exposing the effective unity of the Union. In times of the cold war, and perhaps even the hot one, everyone would have to grapple with what to choose.
Britain must do nothing more than start bypassing the bureaucracy in Brussels and negotiating in individual European capitals with individual member countries, clarifying what the national terms and interests would be after the breakup. Remember that the European Union does not have a Constitution, it does not have an army and it has a Parliament reduced to a symbolic function and that none of this will change in a time horizon compatible with the acceleration that international files are having.
Brexit is not a trigger for the British economy, but it is what it has always been: a trigger for the EU or, at best, a net weakening of it. What would be of Greece, so to speak, dealing today with Turkish expansionism or Italy, working imaginatively, with Turkey a stone’s throw away without NATO? This is the question. Biden’s presidency takes a back seat for what Europeans, in good company with China, have passionately cheered. But nobody in the United States, nor in Russia, has any illusions about what the European Union is and above all it is not and about what Great Britain brings to the table with its alliances. The EU is a geopolitical non-entity in a phase where “geopolitics” counts infinitely more than in the last 30 years.
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED
