Mending the Brexit Catastrophe
Five years after their divorce, the UK and EU are rebuilding ties.
BBC (“UK and EU agree post-Brexit deal on fishing and trade“):
The UK and the European Union have agreed a deal on fishing, trade and strengthening ties, in the first big reset of relations since Brexit.
A 12-year deal has been done on fishing access for EU boats into UK waters in exchange for easing some trade frictions – something which is likely to prompt a row.
The government is expected to argue it has secured improved trading rights for British food and agricultural products into the EU.
The Conservatives and Reform UK have described news of the deal as a “surrender” to the EU, while the Liberal Democrats said the government had taken some “positive first steps” to rebuilding ties with Europe.
A defence and security pact will be central to the agreement, which will be set out in a few hours at a UK-EU summit in London.
Announcements around trade and security were expected to include British access to a €150bn (£125bn) EU defence fund, which could be a boost for UK defence companies.
Both sides will emphasise the shared desire for deepening co-operation.
Talks between the UK and the EU continued late into Sunday evening, with defence, trade, fishing rights and a possible youth mobility scheme among the issues discussed.
The remaining stumbling blocks to a deal, mostly concerning fishing rights, were solved at about 22:30 on Sunday night, government sources said.
But other key elements, such as the idea of a youth mobility scheme, will still be subject to further negotiation.
A deal on allowing British travellers to use passport e-gates – automated self-service barriers at European airports – is also thought to be on the table.
Of course, Brits had all of that and much more as members of the EU. While I was and remain sympathetic to sovereignty concerns as the EU slowly evolved into something closer to a confederation than an economic union, the UK gave up so very much more than they gained through a complete divorce.
Somehow, despite the pain of the last five years, the Tory leadership seems not to have gotten it.
Fishing only accounts for an estimated 0.4% of UK GDP, but British control over its fishing waters was a big issue in the Brexit campaign.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said giving the EU access to British waters for 12 years “was three times longer than the government wanted”.
“We’re becoming a rule-taker from Brussels once again,” she posted.
Reform UK MP Richard Tice said Sir Keir had sold out British fishing and promised his party would would repeal this deal if it won the next general election.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said the prime minister “must ignore the naysayers and dinosaurs in Reform and the Conservative Party and be more ambitious in getting the best deal in the national interest”.
When asked if Brexit freedoms were being lost, Reynolds said the deal would “reduce bureaucracy” in areas where “we’ve got the same standards on both sides”.
And commenting on the possibility of a youth mobility scheme, Reynolds said the “details would need to be worked out” but insisted “it’s something different to freedom of movement that we had in the past”.
There have been talks about a youth mobility scheme with the EU – something that Sir Keir told the Times on Saturday would be a “reciprocal” arrangement in which young people would be able to move abroad for up to two years.
No specific details about the ages of those who could be eligible and whether there would be a cap on numbers were given, and it has received mixed responses from opposition parties.
Badenoch said the lack of details on youth mobility would increase “fears of free movement returning”, while Reform UK said earlier this week that such a scheme would be “the thin end” of EU free movement.
The Liberal Democrats have backed the idea of a “capped mobility scheme”, although the party’s Europe spokesperson James MacCleary has accused the government of “dragging their heels when it comes to properly negotiating on the issue”.
Given how unpopular “free movement” has become in the richest EU states in the aftermath of mass migration from the Middle East, one would think this is a concern London could have addressed from within the Union.
Alas, aside from a change in party control, there’s a sad reason that this movement is happening now. As the NYT (“E.U. and U.K. Strike a Deal: What to Know“) reports:
The summit has been billed as a major reset of relations, and it is being especially closely watched given the context: Both Europe and Britain are trying to figure out how to reorient themselves in a world where America is a less reliable ally on defense and trade.
[…]
The European Union has been working hard to clinch trade deals and shore up alliances as it tries to prove to the United States that it is an economic and diplomatic power to be reckoned with.
President Trump has hit Europe with several waves of tariffs — both across-the-board and industry-specific — and is only beginning to make deals to de-escalate the situation. While Britain has struck a preliminary deal to avert much-higher tariffs, the European Union has made limited progress toward one.
And both partners see a need for greater collaboration in a world where the United States is a less-willing supporter of its traditional allies. Britain’s firms and its defense industry could benefit from being included in Europe’s push to rearm, and Europe could benefit from access to British military capabilities.
It’s hard to argue otherwise.
Everyone can see GOP factions striving to put a “unitary executive” in control, perhaps of all “seven mountains.” And maybe putting people such as J.D. Vance or Ron DeSantis in the oval office to get there. Plus, obviously, the current occupant.
So, yeah, everyone needs to hedge against that possibility.
A slim majority of British voters fell for obvious lies and voted to make life narrower and more limited for their children. Pretty much what American voters just did. Both countries voted against the future.
The inevitable slippery slope to tighter political integration always struck me as a good thing.
Eminently sensible.
Mend fences, mitigate problems, seek constructive engagement.
Single market/customs union can wait for the next term.
Rejoining may be back on the agenda in perhaps in a dozen years or so.
@JohnSF:
As everyone knows, this would involve joining on pretty much the same terms any new member would get – the special just for the UK accommodations would be, at least mostly, just not be there.
@gVOR10:
I’m not sure it is an “inevitable slippery slope”, or ever has been.
The EU is now compared its establishment in 1993 (or even to the European Community that preceded it) not notably more tightly integrated.
The exception being the euro and related ECB system; but even in that, there is no common “treasury” or mechanism for integrating national bond issues in euros with ECB guarantees of debt on an international basis.
The one area where there may be momentum for another major step, is a revived EDC as a European Defence Union. But even that does not require a central European unitary executive on the US model.
Simply replicating NATO regarding command, intelligence, and support structures, and adding pooled R&D, procurement, and various administrative tasks should suffice.
@charontwo:
Exactly.
The old “special arrangements” are gone for good.
That’s why rejoining is likely to go slowly, if it goes at all.
Association similar to Norway or Switzerland is perhaps more likely, in the medium term, and sufficient for the key needs of both parties.
@JohnSF:
Brexit and Trump have both done serious damage to Britain and the US. And in both cases it wasn’t some outside force, or some crisis, just ignorant, lazy, stupid voters abetted by dishonest media and spineless politicians. History students in the future will struggle to make sense of these acts of self-sabotage. A common thread seems to be nostalgia – the UK for days of empire, the US for the days when we had the only functioning industrial economy. Both countries have turned out to be smaller and weaker than they imagined they were. Europe gets along just fine without your lot, and the whole world is rapidly learning to get along without us.
@JohnSF:
Brexit and Trump have both done serious damage to Britain and the US. And in both cases it wasn’t some outside force, or some crisis, just ignorant, lazy, stupid voters abetted by dishonest media and spineless politicians. History students in the future will struggle to make sense of these acts of self-sabotage. A common thread seems to be nostalgia – the UK for days of empire, the US for the days when we had the only functioning industrial economy. Both countries have turned out to be smaller and weaker than they imagined they were. Europe gets along just fine without your lot, and the whole world is rapidly learning to get along without us.
OK, that is not my fault. I did nothing different!
@Michael Reynolds:
It was grumpy resentment of lives “not as wonderful as seen on screen”, imho.
The EU was not, and is not perfect – what human institution is? – but it was viewed with complete lack of perspective.
It became a scapegoat for all the troubles, and thus a convenient distraction or cause to ride, for some politicians, at the same time as others hated various aspects of it (both on the left and the right).
The problem was that the Conservative divisions on this got linked to their psychodrama about their defenestration of Margaret Thatcher, and their hatred of the “unnatural rule” (in the Tory view) of Tony Blair, and thus caused Cameron’s cowardice over Europe, AND his peeving the Tory base by trying to woo Blairites voters.
In addition, there were areas of the country with genuine grievances: there were, and are, places that were “left behind” by the erosion if industry, and the vast sucking noise of wealth being hoovered up by the “vampire squids” in the City.
To a lot of people in such places, the opportunity of a referendum to just scream “fuck OFF!” at the world in general, and the government in particular, was irresistible.
Personally, I doubt nostalgia for empire ever had much to do with it.
Apart from briefly in the late 19th century under Disraeli, imperialism was never the stuff of popular politics.
Such popular connections with empire as there were at mass levels were mostly with the “colonies of settlement”: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, to some extent South Africa.
And they had all been effectively self-governing since about 1900.
Is it that “free movement” has become unpopular or is it that the free movement of certain people has become an issue?
My impression is that overall, free movement is pretty popular and that most Europeans have become quite enamored of being able to freely move within the EU themselves.
Maybe some of our European denizens can correct me if my perceptions are skewed?
@JohnSF:
That was my rewrite of my original sentiment that Brits had an exaggerated view of their own importance in the modern world. I thought it was gentler. You know I am all about gentle expression.
I was in UK a fair number of times while Brexit was a thing and I’d find myself in conversation with people who seemed to me to assume that the EU was not necessary because of the special relationship with the US plus some fantasizing about a great Anglosphere trading zone.
Most troubling to me at the time was a British publisher who voted for Brexit. I told them they were betting against their own young readers. One minute British kids had all of Europe as a playground, and then they didn’t.
@Steven L. Taylor:
In the UK Brexit there was a LOT of popular conflation of four or five separate things:
– “borderless transit” under the “Schengen system” ie absence of border controls for people, and (mostly) fo good
– “free movement of labour”: citizens of one EU country have the right to take up employment in another EU county, and receive similar treatment in most respects to native-
– “rights of residence”: you can also, generally, move and live anywhere you please so long as you can support yourself
(N.B. – these right do not allow the unemployed etc to go “welfare shopping”; the basic “free movement” right is of labour, not people. Its essentially part of the single market economy arrangements, rather than individual freedoms.)
– non-EU migration of labour: each country can admit migrants from non-EU states, according to national, not EU rules, both as economic migrants (the UK traditionally had large numbers of such, which rocketed up after Brexit, as employers sought substitute labour sources). This category also includes organised routes for asylum (rather few) and arguably the related migration of dependents. These persons can quite readily become citizens, and then have equal rights in the first three categories.
– “non-organized migration”: that is, the arrival across EU external borders of large numbers of person seeking refuge, asylum, or opportunity. Which is a book in itself.
But many Brexit voter were CONVINCED that all “migants” were entering the EU on false pretence, then all immediately heading to the UK because of “our NHS” or “our welfare” or “to get houses on the council, innit”
In general the European politics is: internal free movement, fine.
Large scale external inward migration: not so much.
@Steven L. Taylor:
My experience in the UK has been that there is a huge “certain people” issue. It’s kinda in your face. But that being said, legal immigration as a white person with plenty of money has been way more hostile and difficult than I expected. I think it’s all about to get worse with Starmer’s “Hit Immigrants with Hammers” plan.
@JohnSF:
The sad part of the UK’s Brexit bullshit is that if the UK were still in the EU, my family’s plan would have been to get my UK citizenship confirmed and then head to Spain. We can work anywhere.
ETA: It’s really weird to be both an immigrant and not. I mean, I’m a UK citizen by birth (thanks Dad), but I’m also getting the joy of being an immigrant in a country that despises me.
@Beth:
As the climate deteriorates and globalization retreats, Europe will face a massive wave of illegal immigration from MENA. Unless climate change plays out very differently from what we expect, there are going to be serious, perhaps unfixable problems feeding Africa. Starving people go toward food.
I know it sounds callous, and that’s because it is, but if more moderate Europeans don’t get a handle on this we’ll have Italian and Greek and Spanish fascists machine-gunning refugees in the Mediterranean. We’re so pre-occupied dealing with the present day idiots like Trump, that we don’t have the bandwidth to pay much attention to rising temperatures and the almost inevitable effects on agricultural productivity. But it does not look good for Africa, although they’ll be relatively fine on rising sea levels as they have few low-lying coastal areas.
@Michael Reynolds: Don’t worry, researchers in the US are busily developing much more efficient and high-yield crops for African climates – oops wait – guess all that research just got defunded.
@Michael Reynolds:
I think we’re likely to get the machine gunning of migrants no matter what at this point. But, I’m pretty much out of hope at this point.
The stupidity of it all is there is plenty of food and with better farming and stability, Africa could feed itself. But that requires money, and the West, particularly the US, doesn’t even want to spend money to feed its own people.
It wouldn’t surprise me if we’re like 5-10 years out from WWIII, whatever that would look like. I mostly don’t care, cause I’m not sure if I’m going to make it 5 months.
@Beth:
Please stop this type of thinking. Remember that your partner and your children will be devastated if you shuffle yourself of this mortal coil. You’re tough; you bearded the bureaucracy in its own den. You’re strong enough to keep living a good life, too.
@Michael Reynolds:
You are the very soul of grandmotherly kindness. 😉
It still puzzles me how otherwise fairly sentient beings could fall for the guff about the “special relationship” and the “anglosphere”.
I’m at least as sentimental as the next person, and more than many, but when it comes to international relations, living in a fantasyland of unicorns farting rainbows is unlikely to end well.
In grandma Farren’s words “On the whole, good will, and one penny, will buy you a penn’orth of chips.”
It was obvious to anyone who examined the history that the UK benefited greatly from being in the EU and at the same time having deep defence/financial linkage with the US, and to some extent with other “connections” (notably Australia and the Gulf states).
Our problem was a tendency to mistake this for entirely inherent capacity, and to slight the entirely sensible French strategy of developing a European defence/technological “pillar” capable of relating with the US, China etc as a “near-peer”, rather than a supplicant.
Perhaps Trump has woken those folks up to the colder realities.
Though the Conservatives reactions to the UK/EU deal does not give much cause for optimism on that.
*sigh*
@Michael Reynolds:
@Beth:
imho, the linkages between the UK and “the Continent” established over the last 50 years are too deep to be quickly broken.
There remain a lot of Europeans in the UK, and Brits in Europe.
Anecdotage: a fortnight ago my bother and sister in law were down in Seville, for the marriage her nephew to a Spanish girl.
They intend to stay in Spain for the time being at least.
Also attending was s.i.l.’s adopted son who is currently living with his partner in N. Spain (Bilbao iirc) and has become a Spanish citizen. And a niece who lives in Barcelona. And some cousins who live in S. France and are now dual citizens.
Two very good things that may (need to see full details) come out of this deal are free-er movement for young people and UK use of the digital border checks system.
The last may not seem much, but one BIG problem in expanding high-speed rail services from London to European destinations is the sheer lack of space and time to handle “physical passport check in” at London stations.
London to Milan in eight hours! Yay!
(A fellow can dream.)
Triple post?
How the hell did that happen?
And no option to delete.
*eek*
Oh, delete is back.
Jolly good.
@Beth:
@Michael Reynolds:
The problem may be, if nastier versions of climate change take hold, can any agricultural investments remedy the situation in parts of Africa?
If the Niger dries up, the west Sahel is utterly screwed.
The problem is, we don’t have sufficient data on what the climate was like in the Sahel during the previous post-Cretaceous thermal maxima: the “Late Paleocene thermal maximum” about 55 million years ago, and (more relevant given the continental geographies) the Pliocene Thermal Maximum about 3.5 million years back.
Also, our capability for accurate global climatic modelling is, frankly, pants.
The latter was about 2,.5 to 3 degrees average warmer than present day.
In the shorter run, the current big problem is the takeover of the “Sahel tier” states by military juntas who believe the solution to their problems with the discontented semi-nomadic peoples, and their land conflicts with the “settled” populations, and the related Islamist insurgencies, is brute force.
The US was rather reluctant to engage much with this, Russia has propped up the army regimes with Wagnerite mercs plus dodgy financial deals, and the French have decided to cut their losses and pull out.
There being no point trying to encourage the armies to combine rational military policy with political compromise, if the regimes concerned simply don’t want to listen.
The best option for Europe now is probably to engage with the “west African tier” (Senegal, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Cameroon etc) and enable them to stabilise their northern neighbours if/when that becomes possible/necessary.
Ultimately though, if west/central Africa goes to hell, there is no way Europe can, or will, or even could, handle 100 million Africans moving north.
Nor could the Maghreb.
At that point, the Arab states will start blocking migration by military force out of sheer necessity.
And if the Niger fails, it would become unlikely that many attempting to flee north overland could survive the Sahara crossing.
It would simply become logistically impossible.
This is another big reason for Europe to keep on mitigating CO2, to assist the west African states, as it’s obvious the US won’t, and to investigate various emergency contingency plans.
THE BLACK MIRROR IS POWERFUL. Who could believe that I would be rich someday? but Baba Powers made it possible with the black mirror which I purchased from him. Thanks to him because the black mirror reveals the secrets, unlock the power. I came across various testimonials which state how the black mirror has been of good and great help to them. I also contacted Baba Powers on his email; Babablackmirrors@ gmail. com to also experience it for myself. I am really happy to get the black mirror. Thank you Baba Powers for your special black mirror. You can also view his website and you will see amazing testimonies from people that he has helped. His website is; Babablackmirrorsofpowers.blogspot.com I urge you now to contact him and you will never regret it.