As trade talks with the UK ground to deadlock on Dec. 9, one EU official summed up the mood in Brussels, writing in a memo: “The Brits ... are taking us for a ride, we must remain firm.”
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had just met for dinner in the Berlaymont building, the headquarters of the 27-nation EU’s executive branch, and failed to resolve blockages on fisheries and competition policy.
Even though those differences and many others were on Thursday resolved with a deal to avert a cliff-edge rupture to a US$900 billion trade relationship, the pattern of mutual mistrust highlighted by the memo, seen by reporters, remains.
Illustration: Yusha
That mistrust is likely to bedevil future relations as the UK and EU address a huge slate of unfinished business ranging from trade in services to cooperation on criminal matters and security.
“Unfortunately, trust is not something that will come overnight,” a senior EU diplomat based in Brussels said.
The economic consequences of the UK’s acrimonious break from its historic European allies will likely be painfully evident — but the geostrategic implications will arguably be even greater.
For one of Europe’s main military and economic powers to shun the EU as the bloc tries to become a coherent counterweight to Russian and Chinese assertiveness will likely diminish Europe’s transatlantic community with the US and Canada.
The UK formally left the EU in January, 47 years after joining the European Communities and three-and-a-half years after its Brexit referendum, but then entered a transition period during which rules on commerce and travel were frozen until the end of this year.
EU officials and diplomats described the talks to put a post-transition trade deal in place, as an exhausting exercise of bluff and brinksmanship.
On the EU side, the 27 member states remained united under EU Head of Task Force for Relations with the UK Michel Barnier, an unflinching defender of their single market of 450 million people.
The British side was harder to gauge, because it sometimes sought to exploit differences between member states and often appeared to be guided by the vagaries of domestic politics, the EU officials said.
Yet to mass-circulation newspapers at home and Brexit ideologues in his government, Johnson’s tough line with Brussels on competition rules and access to UK waters for EU fishing boats was applauded as a much-needed assertion of sovereignty.
The UK has always been ambivalent about the project to unite and rebuild Europe from the ashes of World War II.
It joined, belatedly, in 1973, but its economic liberalism jarred with much of continental Europe, and it never joined the single currency, the euro, or the Schengen zone of passport-free travel.
British euroskepticism was for decades fanned by much of its press, whose members — including Johnson, a Daily Telegraph correspondent in Brussels from 1989 to 1994 — panned the federalist ambitions of “eurocrats” and lampooned the EU’s regulatory zeal.
Johnson once poked fun in an opinion column at rules that, according to him, forbade the recycling of a teabag or children under eight blowing up balloons.
For many Britons, Brexit has an intellectual rationale: The UK should cut loose from the stagnating economies of the EU and compete with a project that they are convinced is destined to fail.
Yet the UK’s uneasy relationship with the EU has been controversial at home, too.
Then-British prime minister Margaret Thatcher’s aggression toward Brussels led to a UK Conservative party coup that ended her time in office in 1990.
The 2016 Brexit referendum gamble, made by then-British prime minister David Cameron, led to his departure and, with voters split 52 to 48 percent, polarized British society.
On the other side of the English Channel, many have long thought that the UK is simply a poor fit.
Former French president Charles de Gaulle twice vetoed the UK’s attempts to join what was then the European Economic Community in the 1960s.
Five decades later, French President Emmanuel Macron pressed for a swift British exit after the referendum, worried that euroskeptic sentiment could seep across the continent.
The UK’s boldest step during the trade talks came last summer, when an inner circle around Johnson met to figure a way out of the deadlock. Their solution: trigger a crisis.
In the words of one source close to the group, they decided to “put a gun on the table” by drafting legislation that would explicitly override parts of the withdrawal agreement, the divorce treaty that the UK had already signed with the EU.
Several British officials told reporters that the internal market bill had been a shock tactic to counter what they saw as EU efforts to prevent the UK winning back its “sovereignty” before its final exit from the bloc’s orbit on Jan. 31, but the move made Brussels all the more determined to make sure that it could enforce a trade deal.
Von der Leyen spelled it out: “Trust is good, but law is better ... And crucially, in light of recent experience, a strong governance system is essential to ensure that what has been agreed is actually done.”
Sources said that the strategists behind the gambit included some who felt that the UK had been humiliated in earlier talks and were determined not to let that happen again.
Britain’s tabloid press was indignant last year when Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May — another Conservative prime minister to fall victim to the struggle over Europe — had to sit outside a summit meeting room for hours while, as the Sun newspaper put it: “EU leaders gorged on langoustine and duckling.”
At a summit in Salzburg, Austria, a year earlier, then-European Council president Donald Tusk posted a picture on Instagram of himself at a cake stand alongside May with the caption: “A piece of cake, perhaps? Sorry, no cherries.”
The jibe referred to a plan proposed by May for the withdrawal agreement that the EU had publicly trashed as cherry-picking the benefits of membership — and to Johnson’s belief that the UK could do just that, “have its cake and eat it.”
“The cake business certainly had an impact,” a British source said.
Some saw it as tasteless, because May is diabetic.
A source involved in the divorce talks last year said that, when the delegations broke for refreshments, they would often sit on opposite sides of the room, glaring at each other in silence.
Rancor over the internal market bill set the tone for negotiation as the end-year deadline loomed.
A spat broke out on Twitter between the UK Head of Taskforce Europe David Frost and the usually smooth Barnier. Both sides dug in on fishing rights, ways to settle future disputes and “level playing-field” rules to guarantee fair competition, including state aid to companies.
The UK in October declared that it was breaking off negotiations entirely.
However, a week later, they resumed, after Brussels acknowledged that both sides needed to compromise — a signal that London hailed as evidence that its strategy had worked.
Johnson’s dinner on Dec. 9 with Von der Leyen and the two chief negotiators — ironically including turbot, a flatfish found in British waters — threw up a sharp contrast between the two sides as photographs taken beforehand went viral.
On one side stood the EU’s elegantly dressed German president and its French negotiator; on the other, Johnson in an ill-fitting suit with his trademark tousled hair and his negotiator wearing a tie that had been tied too short.
A UK source said that Johnson had gone in with proposals and been “genuinely trying to find a route to a solution,” but he had been stonewalled and left with a sense that “things were very gloomy.”
Another source close to the talks said that Johnson’s affability had failed to charm the more formal Von der Leyen.
“I don’t believe either would normally invite the other to a dinner party. Chalk and cheese,” the source said.
The EU memo sent after the dinner said that London appeared to be trying to squeeze out concessions by declaring that it was prepared to leave without a deal.
It took another two weeks of negotiations, stretching into evenings and over weekends, to find an agreement.
One EU diplomat close to the negotiations said that the past four-and-a-half years had been a “tiresome melodrama” that had dented goodwill and sapped enthusiasm for any further talks.
“The divorce was meant to be amicable. But our estranged spouse went mad and that didn’t go smoothly,” he said. “One way or another, we are still going to be stuck together. Loveless.”
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers