Reader TTS

“One more roll of the dice.” But the dice were loaded.  A week ago, there was still hope that, with goodwill on both sides, we might find a way to rescue the trade deal. It was, the

anguished Irish Taoiseach Micheal Martin told the other 26 EU leaders, a deal that was “97 per cent” done. He should know: Ireland stands to lose even more than the UK from no deal. Yet the

demigods that rule in Paris, Berlin and Brussels have proved to be implacable. Free trade is like good sex: unsurpassed as long as it is equal and reciprocal. Once one side decides to

dominate, however, it only works if the other is a willing partner. In the absence of consent, the act of love becomes a crime. In the same way, coercing a trading partner into an unequal

relationship by the threat of sanctions is the commercial equivalent of rape.  What the EU is proposing to the UK is wholly lacking in equality, reciprocity and justice. It is not so much a

deal as a diktat. The “level playing field” of which we have heard so much turns out to be about as level as the slopes of the Matterhorn. No self-respecting sovereign nation could sign it.

Perhaps the two greatest challenges facing the world are the Covid pandemic and climate change. Every country in the West, and many others besides, are digging deep into their resources to

address these issues. This applies as much to the EU as to the UK. Yet under the terms now on the table in the trade talks, the UK would be banned, on pain of sanctions, from supporting

industries that are suffering from the impact of Covid or that are adapting to the zero emissions targets now set for 2030. The EU, on the other hand, would face no such penalties. Indeed,

not only would its €750 billion Coronavirus Recovery Scheme be exempt from any such restrictions, but so would all present and future subsidies flowing from the European Commission and the

European Recovery Bank. The EU shamelessly excludes “supranational” subsidies and rescue funds, while penalising national state aid, no matter how legitimate or necessary its purpose. As for

the EU’s so-called ratchet: this too is not only one-directional but also one-sided. If the EU tightens its regulatory regime in any area, the UK is obliged to follow suit or be hit by

tariffs. But the EU would be under no such obligation if the UK were to raise its standards. Nor would the UK have any right to impose reciprocal tariffs in response to the EU’s actions,

however arbitrary. We would just have to pay up, pay up and play their game. Above all, there is no provision in the proposed agreement for independent arbitration. The European Court of

Justice is a misnomer: its purpose is to advance the cause. It cannot be expected to issue balanced judgements in any dispute between the EU and the UK. Yet the politicised justices in

Luxembourg are the only arbiters that the EU will recognise. It is determined to be judge and jury in its dealings with the British, even though other trading partners are not expected to

accept such terms. There is no fair-dealing in this deal. It is free trade for the EU, but unfree for the UK. Europe is happy to favour the most authoritarian regimes on earth, from Moscow

to Beijing, but refuses free and fair trade with the homeland of parliamentary democracy. Such is the resentful and vindictive spirit engendered by Brexit — a decision that was opposed by

all the major parties, all our partners and all our allies in the referendum, but which was, nonetheless, a decision that had to be respected in a democracy. The EU’s attempt to impose its

terms has failed. It may have been intended as a show of strength, but it is in reality a lamentable sign of weakness. What have the 27 states, the largest trading bloc in the world, to fear

from a free trade agreement with one medium-sized country? Is the Single Market really so fragile that it must be protected from “unfair competition” by this byzantine and transparently

inequitable apparatus? The phrase “Singapore on Thames” seems to have spooked the Brussels bureaucracy, but there is no chance at all that the British people would allow their government to

abandon the social protection and high taxation that is habitual on both sides of the Channel. The British not only invented the Single Market but the welfare state, too. As it is, by

placing tariffs as well as regulatory barriers in the way of cross-Channel trade, the EU is ensuring that UK trade will reorient itself towards the other six continents. If Europe can manage

without almost seventy million British customers, so be it. If the UK had never belonged to the EU, does anyone imagine that it would be treated with such cavalier contempt? Geography alone

makes nonsense of no-deal. But the British Isles have been joined to the rest of Europe by faith, commerce and the arts since the dawn of human civilisation. For those who have pleaded the

cause of European culture on these islands, who have devoted a lifetime of learning and scholarship to the interpretation of our common republic of arts and letters, this denouement is a

bitter pill to swallow. With just a little more give-and-take, we could have salvaged the best of the European communion, if not the European Union. Now, it seems, we shall have to start

again from scratch.  A MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more

than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation._