Imagine that Donald Trump wanted to reopen trade talks with the European Union. I know, I know, but humor me.
Suppose that the United States were to ask, in good faith, to resume the negotiations that were halted in 2016. And suppose that Brussels were to respond as follows: “We’ll discuss a trade deal with you, but with two preconditions. First, you need to give us control over the terms of your trade with third countries. From now on, we get to negotiate deals on your behalf with Canada, Mexico, and the rest. Second, we will assume administrative control over California, laying down its technical standards. Oh, and after all that, there is no guarantee that we will actually give you the trade deal.”
We know how Americans would respond to such demands. Yet these are the terms that the EU is demanding from the United Kingdom. Its officials say they won’t discuss trade — or police co-operation, or the exchange of information, or any of the usual courtesies between neighboring states — unless the U.K. first agrees to remain in the EU’s customs union (in other words, accepting its common tariffs and agreeing not to sign its own trade deals) and to allow the economy of Northern Ireland to be regulated by Brussels.
The former Greek economics minister Yanis Varoufakis declared that “this is a deal that a nation signs only after having been defeated at war,” a theme taken up by many British politicians. I see his point, though it reminds me more of the ultimatum issued by Austria-Hungary to Serbia in July 1914, demanding control of large chunks Serbia’s internal affairs. That ultimatum, like this one, was designed to be rejected.
The EU’s calculation was that, if it offered harsh enough terms, Britain might drop the whole idea of Brexit. Its chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, told EU leaders at the start of the process: “I’ll have done my job if, in the end, the deal is so tough on the British that they’d prefer to stay in the EU.”
That tactic has worked in the past. Denmark and Ireland were browbeaten into backing down after voting the “wrong” way in EU referendum — twice in Ireland’s case. When Theresa May was prime minister, it seemed to be working again. But Boris Johnson is a different beast. Since becoming prime minister, he has declined to meet any EU leaders, saying that he sees no point in sitting there and being told that they won’t budge.
The EU could offer a standard break-clause, of the kind that every other treaty has. But for many Eurocrats, that would take the whole point out of the withdrawal terms, namely that they must be seen to be punitive.
American friends keep telling me that the blockage has something to do with the Irish border or peace some such. It does not. If, as now seems likely, Britain leaves the EU with no deal on Oct. 31, it will immediately become obvious that there was never any possibility of physical infrastructure being erected at the Irish border. Both governments have said as much, and both sets of customs officers have confirmed that it is unnecessary. Who, then, is going to build this hard border, for heaven’s sake? Is Mexico going to pay for it?
The border issue is simply a way of sugarcoating the EU’s demands, disguising their unreasonableness from outside commentators. There are always lazy and gullible journalists prepared to swallow the Brussels line, or, in the case of the New York Times, to exaggerate it.
But the last three years have taught Britons that they are not dealing with friendly negotiating partners. The EU would rather inflict damage on all sides than watch a post-Brexit U.K. succeed. Faced with such an attitude, many Britons feel that the time has come to pivot to friendlier countries; countries that want to maximize the prosperity that comes from free exchange.
At the top of our list, naturally, is the U.S., our biggest investor and the biggest recipient of our investment. Last week, 45 senators signed a letter by the lanky and patriotic Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, calling for a free trade agreement with Britain. Such a deal is one of the few deals to unite anti-Trump Republicans (because they like free trade) with pro-Trump Republicans (because the president wants this particular deal) with a fair number of Democrats (who have become more pro-free trade since Trump took over).
Here’s the good news, senators: A draft trade deal already exists. It was drawn up by eleven U.K. and U.S. think tanks and published last year, and it provides for complete mutual recognition in goods, services, and professional qualifications. It would bring our nations closer and make our peoples richer.
What are we waiting for?
