Britain be warned: Donald Trump is beginning to understand that US interests are far greater in a market of 500 million people than 80 million, writes Geoff Kitney.
So just who are Britain’s best friends in the age of Brexit?
The answer to this question, like everything else about Brexit, is changing as the real meaning of the change Britain is undergoing begins to become clear.
When, just over a year ago, Brexiters celebrated their triumph, there was no shortage of “friends” rushing to declare their admiration for the decision.
Around the Anglosphere – which Brexiters trumpeted as the new “club” in which post-European Union Britain would find a prosperous future – the cheers were deafening.
Led by the then United States presidential candidate Donald Trump, praise and promises of great things for a newly liberated Britain came from key conservative political figures in Canada, Australia and New Zealand – as well as from the right wing in a number of European countries.
Typical of these responses were those of two former Australian conservative Prime Ministers – John Howard and Tony Abbott – who foresaw Brexit as the catalyst for a new age of “Anglosphere” leadership in world affairs, with trade liberalisation as one of its most dramatic impacts.
It was as though the Brexit process was just a bit of an inconvenience to be got out of the way before a new world order of English-speaking leadership emerged with brave Britain as its standard bearer.
As recently as last week, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, in London after the G20 meeting in Germany, praised what he called “the great British spirit” revealed by the Brexit vote, talked of Britain forging a new role in the world and promised that Australia stood ready to do a quick, bold free trade agreement (FTA) with the United Kingdom.
If such rhetoric could be turned into real deeds the future of post-Brexit Britain would be rosy.
But the reality behind the rhetoric is somewhat different.
In fact, Turnbull’s gushing enthusiasm coincided with a series of events which began to create for the first time a clear outline of the scope of the huge challenges facing Britain as it “forges” its new place in the world, outside the EU.
The publication of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill – the first of many bills required to repeal EU laws and replace them with British laws – was the first big reality check. It is massively complex and, within minutes of its release, exploded into political controversy with warnings that it might not get through the parliament.
The bill immediately highlighted the deep and growing divisions in the UK over Brexit – and the immense test of leadership that will be involved in steering the course to the exit. It immediately reinforced the fear that it is a task that Prime Minister Theresa May is not up to.
Then, hours later, came a deeply controversial concession by the UK to the EU – that it would, indeed, be the case that Britain would have to pay a very large amount of compensation to the EU for Brexit.
The bravado of key Brexiters – such as Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, who told the EU it could “go whistle” if it attempted to force the UK to pay an “extortionate” exit price – suddenly looked foolhardy.
If, as some analysts have suggested, the price the UK will have to pay could be as high as €100 billion, the political backlash in Britain could be savage.
Would public support for Brexit collapse?
Certainly, it is highly questionable whether UK voters would have chosen Brexit if they had had any idea of how much they will have to pay for it.
It was as though the Brexit process was just a bit of an inconvenience to be got out of the way before a new world order of English-speaking leadership emerged with brave Britain as its standard bearer.
Another reality check came in the form of what was both an extraordinary piece of theatre and a masterful piece of diplomatic one-upmanship by French President Emmanuel Macron as he turned the traditional Bastille Day celebrations into a statement about the new European political order.
Macron’s use of the pomp and ceremony – and it’s associated military displays – to flatter and seduce US President Donald Trump was a moment of powerful political symbolism – an emphatic statement of claim by Macron and France to replace Britain as the anchor in Europe for the transatlantic alliance.
To an outsider the juxtaposition of Macron’s audacity on the great boulevards of Paris with the quaint but anachronistic pomp and ceremony of Queen Elizabeth II and Spanish King Felipe trotting down The Mall in 18th century, horse-drawn carriages was potent symbolism for what is now happening in the Brexit era.
The US President who had dismissed Europe as irrelevant and applauded Britain’s decision to escape from its clutches appears to have discovered a new perspective which might have big implications for the UK once it cuts itself off from Europe and has a much diminished role as the US’s anchor in Europe.
With Trump beginning to understand that US interests are far greater in a market of 500 million people than 80 million, the implications for British hopes of leveraging the special relationship to its economic advantage with a generous UK-US free trade agreement may have to be reassessed.
The key point about this is that there is a fundamental difference between “friendships” and “interests” in the way countries relate to each other.
Leaders of nations may have friendships with other leaders. But in the end, it is the interests of nations that determine the outcomes in those relationships.
Britain has invested much in the expectation that “friendships” with the nations whose mother tongue is English and with which it has deep historical links will be cash in the bank for a modern, independent Britain.
But history carries less weight than economic and political reality.
This was reinforced by the actions of other members of the Anglosphere is recent days.
Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, chose Dublin as his first destination in Europe on his way to the G20 meeting in Germany. In talks with the new Irish Prime Minister, Leo Varadkar, Trudeau lamented what he described as “Britain turning inward, driven by anger and frustration”.
For him, the significance of Brexit was not that it compelled Canada to work for a closer relationship with Britain, but that it meant Canada should be looking to enhance its relationship with a nation like Ireland that he said was “open to the world in a positive, progressive way”.
After today’s Dail business joined @JustinTrudeau for quick jog through #PhoenixPark. Now off to Dublin Castle for evening business pic.twitter.com/irb1nnmj9I
— Leo Varadkar (@campaignforleo) July 4, 2017
In the case of trade, in contrast to his Prime Minister’s airy optimism about a new, bold trade deal with Britain, Australia’s Trade Minister Steve Ciobo has delivered a much more sombre reality check.
Ciobo, whose trade bureaucrats understand the difficulties and demands of negotiating new trade agreements, suggested that an Australia-UK FTA was not at the top of Australia’s trade agenda.
Australia had to give priority to trade deals that best served its national interests, he said.
Australia’s top priorities were the European Union, because it was a vastly bigger market than the UK, and Indonesia, which was a rapidly growing market and because it was in Australia’s economic and strategic interests to build a deeper trading relationship with Indonesia.
With other major powers jostling for advantage in trade, Australia could not afford to get its priorities wrong, he said.
“So an agreement with the UK is years off.”
It’s a classic case of interests ahead of friendships.
Headline photo: PARIS, FRANCE – JULY 13, 2017 :
The President of United States of America Donald Trump with
french President Emmanuel Macron in press conference at the
Elysee Palace after an extended interview.
Credit: Frederic Legrand – COMEO/Shutterstock
