(Brussels) “We must now ask that question before taking a decision on any possible extension: extending the negotiation, for what reason?” Chief EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnieri is extremely practical about the latest developments in London. The British Government and the House of Commons can’t see a way to resolve the situation created with the referendum of June 23 2016, and after having decided that the United Kingdom would leave the “common home” on March 29 2019, they now appear to have all intentions to send PM Theresa May going cap in hands – as she is being described – to EU officials in Brussels appealing for a delay of the increasingly isolated Island’s leave from the EU.
Barnier’s question is of the essence: what do British politicians really want?
To everyone’s surprise, just ten days before the scheduled withdrawal, House of Commons speaker John Bercow explained that there cannot be a third meaningful vote without “substantial changes.” The matter at stake is the deal agreed by May’s Government with the European Union, rejected already two times in Westminster. This double knockout shows the extent to which the conservative government, internally divided, lacks a parliament majority on this crucial matter (while Labour is unable to indicate an alternative way out). UK solicitor general Robert Buckland went to so far as to speak of “a major constitutional crisis.”
Since the fateful referendum of three years ago, when the people of Britain opted by a small majority to leave the European Union, we counted – if the journalist’s notepad is not mistaken – at least 50 high-level meetings to put the withdrawal agreement into writing. European Council meetings, endless EU28 Ministers sittings, overwork in the Commission, countless debates and voting sessions at the European Parliament, exhausting negotiations between diplomatic representatives. All of this weighed on the EU’s political machine – at a time already troubled by other emergencies – for the sole purpose of complying with British wishes.
But now, the climate clearly perceived in Brussels’ corridors shows that “enough is enough”
And the European Council of March 21-22, the latest meeting “stalled” by the Brexit-issue, once again diverts the political attention of the EU from issues that are unquestionably closer to the hearts of EU citizens – such as economic and financial recovery, resolving the migratory issue, the fight on terrorism, the development of energy policies, combating climate change, support to agriculture and breeding, trade agreements with major international players, controversial foreign policy issues, the creation of a veritable “European social pillar”, and so on. Once more, over the past days, EU institutions had to take remedial action against the possibility of a “no deal” to protect students in the Eresamus + programme, after having taken similar measures in other sectors.
There remains the certainty that the so-called Brexiteers, after having persuaded British subjects to leave the EU – with nationalistic motivations,
now attest to the capitulation of nationalism and of British purported self-sufficiency.
This is probably true for all forms of self-sufficiency in our complex, ever-dynamic world faced with countless challenges brought about by global players of the calibre of China, India, United States, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Japan, and the like.
And while the chair of the EPP group at the European Parliament Manfred Weber spoke of the “failure to deliver by the political class in London”, the ex President of the European Commission Romano Prodi remarked: “I had predicted an exit negotiation in which a united Britain faced a divided Europe; instead, the EU has presented an unbroken front to a splintered UK.” Indeed, the “internal divisions” in London “run deep.”
Looking ahead, which steps can be expected – or wished for – from Brexit? Coherence and national pride call for a British withdrawal no matter what: a courageous “no-deal” followed by a resumption of negotiations after March 30 with less self-righteousness and more common sense… But the risks – at economic, social and political level – of a “no-deal Brexit” are too high, for Britain and Europe alike. A delay is the most likely option, signalling Britain’s recovered wisdom, that would have to be met with an equal amount of patience on the part of EU countries – in the hope that a spirit of revenge among EU27 shall not prevail.
Finally, there emerges a twofold warning to European political leaders and citizens.
The former must have realized that if an EU member Country decides to leave “home” it will be necessary to ascertain its motivations, which may be rooted in the need to reform the EU. The latter, European citizens, have the duty to open their eyes wide; May 23-26 voting date for the renewal of the European Parliament draws near. Will voters support other nationalistic (and soverignist) political formations with the same DNA and the same defeated face of Brexiteers, or will they choose candidates who believe in the EU, notwithstanding the need to reform it and revive it?
