/ world today news/ With the help of Brexit, Boris Johnson hoped to be able to freely conclude trade agreements at the international level without pressure from the European Union, but instead he lost the influence of his partners, according to the journalist from “Guardian” Raphael Barr. Under US influence, London refused to cooperate with Huawei and angered China, while the Prime Minister refused to present a new strategic partnership with the EU for discussion.
Although the coronavirus has become the main event of 2020, it has not erased the memory of the past years: everyone knows that Britain will leave the European Union, writes the journalist from “Guardian” Raphael Barr. However, to make sure, the British government will spend £93m on re-launching the Brexit campaign, especially for those people who do business with Europe and who are under the illusion that the future will be as easy as before. According to the journalist, no one pushes these delusions more than Boris Johnson, therefore, in its new statement, the government calls not to pay attention to what the prime minister says on this matter.
As the author of the article notes, the main problem is that Brexit may end Britain’s membership in the European Union, but not the European Union itself. As long as the only problem was that the country was part of the EU, the only useful solution was to leave, with radical Eurosceptics not worrying about how they would then have to build relations with Brussels. As a result of such arrogance, Britain has no clear course towards the EU, only the desire to get rid of it, which is already losing its relevance.
It is important to separate the strategic policy towards Europe from the border crossing rules, the payment of customs duties and other regulations that are currently being discussed. In the event of negotiations failing, WTO rules could always be followed, but even then (economically unfeasible) the question of Britain’s geopolitical preferences remains open. The “future relationship” is now on the agenda, but Johnson has limited the discussion to the issue of trade, leaving foreign policy, security and defense cooperation – the topics that shape international alliances – off the list. European leaders were puzzled by this choice, which is why they seem to have postponed discussion of more pressing and important issues for the sake of fishing quotas and customs declarations.
As the “Guardian” commentator explains, Britain’s position is in line with the Eurosceptic doctrine of inviolable sovereignty. From this point of view, European organizations are undermining the country’s strength: any program, even as seemingly innocuous as the Erasmus international student exchange program, is a trap. The purpose of the new “global” Britain, which is a modernization of the old version within the EU, is that it can more freely and on an equal footing maintain relations with other world players.
The downsides of this approach quickly became apparent: in January the government announced it would allow the Chinese telecoms company Huawei to take a limited part in the development of 5G infrastructure in Britain, but yesterday backtracked on the decision. Johnson surrendered under pressure from Conservative MPs, who rightly believe that the company could become a means of advancing China’s security interests, so they want to get rid of its equipment. However, US sanctions against Huawei and Washington’s demand that Britain show more clear loyalty to its transatlantic partner became a more persuasive factor. The White House’s clear message emphasized that trade and security policies are intertwined and ties to an unwanted country could undermine Britain’s chances of entering the US market. At the same time, Beijing warned of retaliatory measures against countries hostile to Huawei.
Any prime minister would prioritize security cooperation with the US over a trade deal with China. But it has fallen to Johnson to be the first to face the difficult choice, as his trade policy, as Barr writes, is “a clean slate and Donald Trump holds the pen”.
As a member of the EU, Britain’s trade deals were conducted through the European Commission, which used the scale of its single market as negotiating leverage: 28 countries, 450 million consumers. Each country believes that under such favorable conditions it is worth making concessions in national sovereignty. Britain is no exception: David Cameron is a moderate Eurosceptic and is happy to do battle with Brussels, but when the choice becomes reality, he opposes leaving the European Union.
In more turbulent times, independent status in the WTO would not be sufficient compensation for Britain as one of the three largest EU member states. Now that trade policy is more than ever mired in geopolitical maneuvering, such an exchange looks like the worst example in history. Johnson also knows this: if he really thought the WTO was where matters were decided, he would have put forward as Britain’s candidate for the new director-general a credible, clever politician with a crystal-clear reputation.
Britain is slipping into a strategic void as its foreign policy is a blueprint that devalues old European alliances and shifts the balance of power in favor of other continents where it is trying to forge new treaties. Johnson cannot solve this problem without demonstrating Brexit’s fundamental flaw: the sovereignty he so fervently demands from Brussels gives him no leverage in Washington, Beijing or elsewhere. According to Raphael Barr, a new strategic partnership with the EU is necessary in the name of Britain’s national interests, but Johnson refuses to even include this concept in the discussions. An obstacle earlier was the belief that Britain no longer needed Europe – now it seems more like a fear to admit how much Britain actually still needs Europe, writes the journalist on the pages of “Guardian”.
Translation: V. Sergeev
#Guardian #Brexit #bring #globalization #sovereignty #Great #Britain #deprived #partners
