EDITORIAL – UK wins ‘war’ against EU … then surrenders

The process of “divorce” between the United Kingdom and the European Union has now lasted longer than many marriages.

Two years ago, then-British Prime Minster David Cameron put the fate of the nation into the hands of the people, calling a referendum on whether the U.K. should “Leave” or “Remain” in the EU.

The people of the U.K., as we all know now, chose “Leave.”

At that point, regardless of their personal feelings on the subject, it became the imperative of U.K. leaders – particularly the majority lawmakers in Mr. Cameron’s Conservative Party – to execute accordingly the will of the people. Mr. Cameron, who (in one of history’s ironies) happens to oppose “Brexit,” had a parallel choice of his own to make: “Leave” the government, or “Remain.”

Mr. Cameron left. Picking up the Brexit baton was current Prime Minister Theresa May, whose Downing Street tenure has been characterized by a perceived lack of toughness on what is, admittedly, one of the tougher issues in 21st century politics.

- Advertisement -

In addition to the intricacies involved in halting and unraveling a complex merger-in-process that was decades in the making, Prime Minister May and her government have had to contend with powerful “anti-Brexit” forces in the U.K. and Europe, spearheaded by political and business elites, the members of which overlap with Ms. May’s own party. Equally challenging, the “Remain” sentiment may well be shared, at least tacitly, by legions of London bureaucrats whose careers have been defined comfortably by the status quo with Brussels.

(As they say in horror films, “The call is coming from inside the house!”)

The result, so far, is that Brexit negotiations have constituted a series of stalls, subterfuges and sabotages, with the latest culmination being this week’s “standstill transition agreement.”

According to the “deal,” U.K. and EU officials have agreed that, even after the U.K. “officially” leaves the EU in March 2019, the U.K. will still abide by EU rules – including on the all-important topic of immigration – but will have no vote in EU decisions. The transitional period lasts through Dec. 31, 2020.

Other concessions and question marks that are present in the transition agreement include the U.K. accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over EU laws and EU citizens, lack of U.K. control over fishing rights in local waters (much to the consternation of Brexit-supporting fisherman and Scottish Tories), and an absence of clarity on the future of the border between Northern Ireland (U.K.) and the Republic of Ireland (EU).

This last issue has serious potential ramifications in terms of economics and public safety.

(Some recent background, in extremely broad strokes: The 30-year Northern Ireland conflict, known as “The Troubles,” mainly between paramilitary groups who either wanted to join the Republic of Ireland or stay in the U.K., killed more than 3,500 people and injured more than 47,000 from 1968 to 1998.)

In return for their capitulations to the EU, what did British “negotiators” receive? Apparently … more time.

How much time do they need?

Perhaps half-hearted Brexit officials secretly hope, if they manage to bungle the negotiations sufficiently, that the people of the U.K. will change their minds about leaving the EU.

That seems unlikely. From where we sit (out in “the colonies”), the more protracted the negotiations become, the stronger our antipathy toward allowing Brussels bureaucrats to dictate the domestic affairs of sovereign nations.

- Advertisement -

Support local journalism. Subscribe to the all-access pass for the Cayman Compass.

Subscribe now


  1. There is so much wrong information here that it is difficult to know where to start.

    Firstly, and most glaringly, the powerful forces spearheaded by political and business elites are very much PRO Brexit, not anti. There is a strong ‘remain’ group but it lacks any real leadership as the leader of the opposition, Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, a committed anti EU politician, apparently leads a party that doesn’t want to leave, or at least isn’t sure if it wants to leave or not!
    Indeed, it is this group that thinks the UK has been sold a pup with this transition deal.

    There there the issue of actually leaving: The EU rules say that when you formally say you want to leave, a two year period begins – BUT unravelling from a bureaucratic jungle of which the UK has been a member for over 50 years, is not a straight forward “we’re off” as we walk through the door of the party and walk into the night. The UK laws are inextricably linked to EU law. Indeed, there are many laws that apply in the UK that come only from EU law, unless you replace them, then, on the day after you ‘leave’, these don’t apply. Even CIG can’t sort out a few laws in a couple of years!

    Then there is the issue of borders and trade deals. The UK will still have a land border with the EU (between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Do we simply reinstate border controls for both citizens and, more importantly, goods where different tariff’s might apply? Where will that leave the Good Friday agreement on which peace and stability in Northern Ireland rests?

    And, finally, on trade, as a member of the EU the UK CANNOT negotiate trade deals with any other country or group. ONLY the EU, on behalf of all members, can negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world, so, if we cannot negotiate separate trade deals until we leave in March 2019, then what do we do in April 2019? No, there has to be a transition period for this to take shape.

    Who is the UK going to trade with going forward? Will it be Trump’s ‘America First’? Is it going to be China and their lack of any respect for international (copyright) law? Is it going to be India where there is very cheap, virtually slave labour?

    No, the UK will still deal with the EU because that’e where we have always traded and the UK needs to negotiate to get he best deal the UK can.

    All this takes time and your suggestion that having a transition period is wrong is ill founded. Or perhaps the Compass editorial board could do better?