Brexit: Politicians and Fish

In the US, politically conscious folk have been so absorbed of late in our own national soap operas --about the Putin-Trump relationship, about an open Supreme Court seat, about real or alleged discussions of the 25th amendment, about the political implications of the latest version of A Star is Born, about the midterm Congressional elections -- so much on our plates that we may have lost track of what is going on in the Mother Country.

Some fascinating and dramatic developments are underway there, as the effectuation of the Brexit vote of 2016 comes to a head.

I'll simply offer you some pertinent links today.

If all goes according the schedule, Great Britain will cease to be part of the European Union in March 2019.

What if you want to move some products across the Channel in April? How will this matter to you then? That remains surprisingly unsettled. The underlying idea in the minds of many of those who supported a "Leave" vote was that Britain could adopt a status analogous to that of Norway. Norway has access to the EU's common market by virtue of its membership in the "European Economic Area," EEA, but it is not a full member, does not vote in the making of EU decisions, and is not subject to EU regulation.

To understand why this matters (to Norway and the UK) , consider Norway's fishing industry. Were Norway to become a full member, its fisheries would fall under the EU's common fisheries policy, designed to prevent over-fishing in order to preserve fish stock for the waters off of Europe over the generations. But Norway's powerful fishing industry doesn't want to be told how many fish it can take each year.

Britain's fishing industry casts its nets into the North Sea, perhaps alongside Norwegians and alongside fisherman from EU countries that also border those waters. There are three-way talks underway amongst the EU, Britain, and Norway about mutual access to waters and markets. The structure of these talks already indicates why Norway prefers not to be a member of the EU as a power political matter. Because it is not, it is one of the three participants in these talks with its own seats at the tables, rather then being a relatively small part of the decision making process within the EU.

The gist is: Norway has a deal that allows it more sovereignty in certain respects than it would have were it a full member, but allows it also the benefit of access to EU markets.  My understanding is that much of the sentiment in GB is for membership in the EEA, which would amount to a "soft Brexit" from the EU.

But that expectation has been disappointed. Many on the continent don't want to allow Britain a soft Brexit, because they fear the demise of the union if everybody tries to pull out of the obligations while staying in as to the benefits. Hence the use of the term "cherry picking."

In July of this year, May's government issued a "white paper" laying out the position it is taking in the continued talks. It essentially proposes the Norway model, including departure from the common fisheries policy and other common policies, along with a continuation of "the UK's and the EU's frictionless access to each other's markets for goods, protecting jobs and livelihoods on both sides."

One problem for May is that although as I say SOME of the Brexit voters probably presumed a Norwegian solution, others, and the most fervent activists, want something more definitive: a more complete break. May has been trying to throw sops to them while assuring her EU bargaining partners that they don't matter, "pay no attention to that sop."

I'm still trying to get a handle on all this myself. Thank's for staying with me, dear readers.

Oh, and here is something about the Scots and Brexit.