| schema:articleBody
| - Four and a half years after Britain voted to leave the EU and as eight months of painstaking trade talks reach a climax, Boris Johnson has 72 hours to answer the most fundamental question: what is Brexit? The UK prime minister, who famously drew up a list of pros and cons for EU membership before opting to spearhead the "leave" campaign in 2016, must finally decide whether he wants an acrimonious divorce or shared custody of joint interests. Late Wednesday, Johnson dined on seafood and Australian pavlova with European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen in her Brussels headquarters -- the scene of his EU-bashing tall tales as a newspaper reporter in the early 1990s. The leaders agreed to disagree on the core problems that have bedevilled the talks, but told their negotiators to make one last push before they make a political decision by the end of Sunday on whether there is any point in continuing. Sunday also marks a year to the day since Johnson's Conservatives won a thumping general election victory on a promise to "get Brexit done" and execute his signal promise of the 2016 referendum -- to "take back control". Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, arguing that Sunday marks a "moment of finality", struck an uncompromising note the morning after the dinner. "We're not going to be treated in a way that no other country would accept or the EU would accept," he told BBC radio. "The whole point of leaving the EU was to have democratic control." Raab demanded the EU "move significantly" on two issues that go to the heart of Britain's newfound sovereignty: the right to set its own rules, regardless of what the EU does in future, and command of its rich fishing waters. Those are both "points of principle", the foreign secretary said. But equally for the EU, there can be no compromise on protecting the integrity of the world's biggest single market from any future UK attempts to grab a competitive edge. Von der Leyen on Thursday published a backup plan to protect road and air travel, and fishing rights, if Britain crashes out of the common market when a post-Brexit transition period expires on the night of December 31. "Negotiations are still ongoing. However, given that the end of the transition is very near, there is no guarantee that if and when an agreement is found, it can enter into force on time," she said. "Our responsibility is to be prepared for all eventualities, including not having a deal in place with the UK on 1 January 2021." Johnson is adamant that either way, Britain will "prosper mightily" including on stripped-down rules set by the World Trade Organization ("Australia terms", as he misleadingly calls them), despite the reimposition of tariffs and quotas. The economic havoc of that "no deal" scenario would compound the pain of the coronavirus pandemic, which has pushed Britain into its worst recession in 300 years. Supply chain disruptions caused by the pandemic and Brexit stockpiling have already caused two of Britain's biggest container ports, at Felixstowe and Southampton, to seize up. Worse would come after December 31 in the event of no deal. But a hard core of Brexiteer Conservatives are already muttering talk of "betrayal" if Johnson caves to the EU. The main opposition Labour party is keeping its powder dry -- mindful of alienating pro-leave voters who deserted it in droves a year ago -- but appears inclined to back a thin deal rather than the chaotic alternative. For all the economic dimensions, ultimately Johnson's decision rests on politically resolving the question that the binary yes/no referendum of 2016 never answered: what kind of country does Britain want to be after Brexit? His government insists it does not plan on a bonfire of regulations with the aim of out-competing the EU, instead retaining current standards for food, the environment and employment -- even if it achieves an ambitious trade pact with the incoming US administration of Joe Biden. But if that is the case, what really is the point of Brexit? "The Brexit negotiations have been such a disaster because Britain never had a serious debate about what it most wanted to achieve. Instead, ministers spent years pretending no trade-offs were necessary," historian Robert Saunders wrote on Twitter. "If everything is a red line, only two outcomes are possible: no deal at all, or a thin deal that's denounced as a betrayal by the very people who were told concessions were unnecessary," he said. "Brexit has been a giant exercise in hubris." With an Oxford degree in classics, Johnson is well aware of the fate that befell tragic heroes guilty of hubris. He has until Sunday to write the ending of this long drama. jit/phz/gd
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)
![[cxml]](/fct/images/cxml_doc.png)
![[csv]](/fct/images/csv_doc.png)
![[text]](/fct/images/ntriples_doc.png)
![[turtle]](/fct/images/n3turtle_doc.png)
![[ld+json]](/fct/images/jsonld_doc.png)
![[rdf+json]](/fct/images/json_doc.png)
![[rdf+xml]](/fct/images/xml_doc.png)
![[atom+xml]](/fct/images/atom_doc.png)
![[html]](/fct/images/html_doc.png)