The battle for England Act 3
By: Martine Devor
Tags: European Union, Great Britain, History, UK, Brexit

Great Britain (GB) has irrevocably decided to leave the European Union (EU) following the 2016 referendum. The 1975 referendum enabled pro-European leaders led by Harold Wilson to join the EU. The then British Prime Minister (PM) renegotiated the accession treaty and obtained the establishment of the “European Regional Development Fund”, where GB would become the main beneficiary while simultaneously, promising “milk and honey” to the peoples if they stayed in the EU. The island which, despite appearances, was left unhealed after the battle of Hastings (1) and consequently developed a European soul (2) is now reclaiming its independence which it ceded almost half a century ago.

By 1973, a thousand (1000) years had elapsed during which neither Philip II of Spain, nor Napoleon, nor Hitler had succeeded in conquering GB. Only beautiful Europe, briefly, succeeded to restrain, the old but still vigorous lion. GB’s exit would second Greenland’s in 1985 but exceed its importance in the short history of the EU. Currently, both GB and the EU are looking for a way through this international relations maze, wandered and dominated by desperate world powers in search of dominance or survival. It is indisputable that different political histories lead to different political cultures and the need to separate something obvious from the beginning so becomes imminent and difficult to deal with later. Even if in terms of political economy, we are all tributary to English thinking (3). In this Italian-style ‘divorce’, the problem arises from a profound disagreement: GB wants to leave with what it has entered and the EU wants to apply conditions and retain that which does not belong to it, but which by virtue of so many years of an “unhappy marriage” should unquestionably be shared. A kind of positive discrimination that is fashionable. The difference in perspective and approach in this divorce causes significant damage which primarily economic but also relational; both sides undeniably being part of the ‘continent they will never leave’ (Boris Johnson-PM of GB). What are the points of entanglement and whence all these perennial, seemingly substitutable grievances? Causes and effects, I will try to answer in the following lines.

On the pages of Contemporary European History, on the UK chapter, two great battles in the last hundred years can be called existential in one way or another. The third one is currently unfolding and is taking place, like the preceding ones, through diplomatic channels.

The battle for England Act 1.

The armies of GB and France betrayed by the Belgian army in June 1940, were surrounded and pushed to Dunkirk where they should have been destroyed by the German army. The unprecedented mobilization, directed by Winston Churchill PM for only a month at that time, led to the rescue of 330,000 British and French soldiers at the expense of a considerable sacrifice of British lives. Winston Churchill would say in this disastrous moment of national torment: “What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect the Battle of Britain to begin’’ (4). Alone, in the face of the unleashed and powerful enemy, surrounded by sea, air and territory; England, would fight the whole of occupied Europe, by Germany and its allies, through any means necessary, with or without support.

At the helm of GB would stand a “lion’s heart” who “with his pencil and his words” (5) would mobilize, sometimes with great difficulty, a nation (6) and an entire globe until final victory was achieved (7).

The battle for England Act 2

In 1963 and 1967 GB was denied entry into the European Economic Community (EEC) by one prominent figure, Charles de Gaulle, President of France. His motivations were “the incompatibility between the economic interests of the continent and the islanders” (8). The general was in favor of deepening the relations between the 6 founding members and accelerating their integration into a common market instead of promoting an uncontrolled enlargement (an error that the EU will repeat in 1970 and later in 1989). De Gaulle considered GB to be a United States “Trojan horse” through which America would rule and dominate Europe. Delivery in Oct. 1962 of the “Polaris” missiles by the USA, England, would hastily repudiate De Gaulle’s negative response to the accession and negotiations begun in 1961. ‘’ I believe that when we talk about the economy and even more so when we do, we must that what we say and what we do is in line with reality, because without that we get into a stalemate and even sometimes we ruin ourselves ‘’. “The Community is in this very big problem. And with regard to a possible accession of Great Britain, the facts must first be taken into account. In short, the nature, the structure, the conjuncture, which are specific to England, differ profoundly from that of the continents (9).”. A more outspoken refusal came in 1967 despite the fact that the United Kingdom was going through a major crisis over a chronic budget deficit and a devaluation of the pound sterling that led EEC member states to repeat rescue interventions. “Perhaps one day the British will have reached the point of entering the common market. But obviously they are not there now. This is true for agriculture, for the movement of capital, for the monetary problem. These are concrete and insurmountable difficulties [that GB has] in the common market, as they are. [Our] government has handled the case with precision, skill and firmness. The fact is inevitably realized. The English now have the floor. We will see if they make the necessary effort to run again. I doubt it” (10). Georges Pompidou as prime minister added: “Behind England’s applications for membership there are other demands that must inevitably be expected. And a common market of twelve or fifteen states could only function at the cost of strengthening the Commission. Because we do not want it, we cannot witness the collapse of the Community” (11).De Gaulle’s convictions and doubts will be disregarded by the same Pompidou three years later when he decides — this time as the French President — to open accession negotiations that will lead to GB becoming a member of the EEC in 1973. The saying “ Beware of enemies posing as friends. Be careful who you bring in your circle. If they aren’t adding to the table, then they’re taking away” (Tony A. Gaskins Jr.). The accession treaty, which was swiftly negotiated, enable the British to settle on multiple compromises (referencing the import of sugar from the Antilles and India, butter from New Zealand …) especially regarding the role of the pound and the level of British contributions. Ambiguities that would allow the Thatcher Government to re-discuss these contributions and obtain the well-known “rebate” established since 1985.

England-Europe = 2–0.

The battle for England Act. 3

In the 2016 Conservative Party election campaign, its leader Mr. David Cameron promised the British electorate that he would initiate a new referendum concerning the country’s EU membership if he emerged victorious, and providing he failed to once again renegotiate the accession treaty. As an absolute winner of the elections (350 seats out of a total of 650), consistent with the promise made and after being diplomatically refused for a possible renegotiation, he organized the referendum in 2016. Unsurprisingly, the result was in favor of Britain’s exit from the EU. And this despite the fact that Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, CitiGroup, Aibus, Eurostar, according to the British Electoral Commission, were among the main sponsors in the campaign to remain in the EU (12). Furthermore, opinion polls were stating a majority voted to remain in the EU until the polls closed (Ipsos-Mori, YouGov, 54% / 46%). A manipulative scenario that will be repeated a few months later in the United States against the Republican candidate, Donald Trump. “The cave of wander”, Mass-Media discredited itself once more, but this time on a far bigger dimension. In the 2016 referendum, several leaders would stand out: Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Michael Gove, Iain Duncan Smith … They would all remain united in the service of the British people who voted for them.

The election of the Conservative leader and therefore of the British PM after David Cameron’s resignation was considered strange by the Western Media (13). Indeed, Mrs. Theresa May had voted to remain in the EU and that in spite of a majority of members of her own party and the British population deciding to leave. The “1922 Committee” and large anonymous members of the British Parliament (existing in all parliaments in the world) decided otherwise. In her first speech as PM, Mrs. May would declare, in an attempt to forget her pro-European leanings, “Brexit means Brexit” (14). But in history she shall remain the British leader who designed the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement. An obvious pro-EU agreement that the new PM, Boris Johnson, is currently trying to get rid of. This is the main reason why the Internal Market Bill was introduced 4 weeks ago. The objective is to try to renegotiate or at least stall to gain time for a “no deal” situation. When Boris Johnson resigned on July 9, 2018, as a member of the May Government with a portfolio of Foreign Affairs, some elites and the British media applauded, while the population cried. “He diminished Britain’s standards and position in the world, and he degraded his own reputation by the way he played his part. He was simply not competent for this job”, wrote The Guardian -09.07.2018. In his resignation letter, Mr. Johnson actually stated the beliefs he held and for which he was elected. A great admirer of Winston Churchill, a master of high-impact words, Johnson outlines his two-page political agenda where typical spicy British humor found its place (“As I said, the government now has a song to sing. The problem is that I practiced words over the weekend, and I found that they were stuck in my throat. We must have a collective responsibility. Since I cannot support these proposals in my whole conscience, I unfortunately concluded that I must resign “). In 2017, the American President Mr. Donald Trump paid a visit to England and met with PM Theresa May. Sometime later, The Sunday Telegraph (06.09.2020) reveals part of their dialogue: Trump asks May- “Why isn’t Boris Johnson prime minister? Didn’t he want this job?”. May explained how the Conservative leadership was chosen. Trump replied, “Oh, you were recruited like in baseball. But I really think you plotted this all the time.” Wolves recognize each other from a distance and those that do not belong shall be devoured. After two agonizing years rhythmed by Beethoven’s ode to joy, Mrs. May resigned in tears much like her predecessor in 1990. Is it fashionable for women to cry when they end their political career for good? Men tend to leave with a party or a funeral.

The lone wolf who refused to run against Mrs. May in 2017, overwhelmingly won elections in his own party (66.4%) and automatically became Prime Minister (15). But the battle for England Act 3 was only in its infancy divided by an oscillating government which was disloyal to the cause for which it was elected. The British Conservative Party needed a massive clean-up. Inevitably, Boris Johnson organizes early elections where only those faithful with the Brexit program are put on the lists. After removing even his own brother from the lists (Jo Johnson on September 3, 2019) and 21 other members of Parliament from the famous “Whip Committee” (16), he announces the early elections on the 12th of December 2019. Given the conditions under which the Conservative leadership had led the country for the past two years, and with odds stacked against them, the Liberal Democrats led by Jo Swinson (self-proclaimed future PM) and the Labor Party led by Jeremy Corbyn (who also considers himself as future PM) jointly planned to turnback Brexit. Both national and international media fully supported them. But the stubbornly ambitious British people, immune to all sorts of poison served up by the medias, decided to grant their utmost confidence to Boris Johnson. The key to Boris Johnson’s phenomenal success in the December 2019 elections was the way in which he managed to communicate with the people. He used a Churchill-worthy rhetoric, “I warn you that if you vote for me and those who are with me, we offer no guarantee of a lush and easy time.” (17) Speaking honestly and in a manner understandable by all, he explained to the voters that this was the only chance to complete Brexit. On a national and political level, the most opportune collaboration was the one with Nigel Farage and his Brexit party. Farage (who gathered 3.8 million voters or 12.6% of the total votes) renounced from putting his own candidates on the lists in order to support members of the Conservative party (18).

The Conservatives being the undisputed and absolute winners of the December 2019 elections, with a comfortable majority of 345 members in Parliament, a confused Labor Party in free fall (the union “Unite the Union” announced a 10% reduction in funds donated to the party), 19) and pulverized and humiliated Social Democratic Party, to the point where the president Mrs. Jo Swinson failed to regain her seat as a deputy, Boris Johnson could finally start his governance program. How? That is the question! The “Brexit agreement” drawn by Theresa May and Michel Barnier (EU chief negotiator), approved by the British Parliament and the European Parliament, imposes a framework that is not favorable to Boris Johnson achieving the goal inscribed in his political program and which he promised to the British electorate. This is one of the reasons why he is approaching his dialogue with the EU through aggressive negotiation tactics. Simultaneously, England is internationally multiplying the signing of free trade agreements with important countries. This inevitably, leads to a decrease in quality standards of the imported products relative to EU standards (the EU is considered to have the highest standards. It imposes these standards on member countries and its trading partners). So, the EU is concerned that food from England, imported from other non-European countries, could ultimately reach the EU through the Northern Ireland market (20). When David Frost (the UK’s chief negotiator) vehemently voiced his concerns, Michel Barnier wanted to clarify the text of the Brexit Agreement by declaring that “We are ready to offer ‘super-preferential’ access to England in our markets: a level access that would be unprecedented for a developed country ”. A possible solution can thus be seen from the big chapter “The level playing field” — competition. In addition to traditional members of the British Commonwealth (accounting for more than 2.5 billion people in the world), GB recently signed a Free Trade Agreement with Japan (11.09.2020) and Ukraine on the 7th of October 2020 (Ukraine, formerly known as the USSR granary, has 42 million ha of agricultural land equaling 40% of the EU’s arable land (21) ).

Yet, the most important agreement that is being negotiated, which is far more advanced, alluring and equitable for England, is the one with the USA (22). Should England sign such an agreement before the US elections? Its economic losses would become bearable and predictable, it would significantly reduce social pressure on the government, strengthen its position in the negotiations with the EU, by allowing a valuable maneuvering margin. The fact that the American President was admitted to hospital and cannot continue his election campaign as intended is not exactly good news for the British PM. Adding to this is the fact that American polls plebiscite the opposing presidential candidate Joe Biden who has deep-rooted Irish ancestry. In addition to the Brexit Framework Agreement set by Ms. May, I will mention the main chapters that generate important disagreements:

- Fishing: 42% of the total amount of fish consumed in the EU comes from British waters (it can reach up to 60% depending on what type of fish and which flotilla is used). As a result, the EU currently wants to maintain access of its fishermen to British waters (North Sea, West of Scotland, Irish Sea, Celtic Sea and Channel). At the same time, GB exports 75% fish caught on its territorial waters, to the EU. Hence, according to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Great Britain will regain its exclusive right to use and fish in its 200-mile exclusive economic zone if no agreement is reached in the Brexit Agreement (23). In other words, GB demands the exclusive right to fish in its territorial waters after which it would sell the fish on the EU market. In the “final settlement” chapter following the “divorce”, the EU settled on GB owing 32.8 billion£ (installments over a period of 44 years) (24). The latter wondering why it could not recover a significant amount from the EU? As fish consumption in the EU is constantly increasing and England is only 34 km from the European Continent, the dependence is almost implicit. The deadlock is evident with both putting forward different arguments: the EU is asking GB to continue the same regime as if nothing had happened. That is to allocate a fixed percentage for each country for a period of 10 years. Great Britain wants to allocate an annual fishing quota to each country according to the fish stocks found in the seas (25) as the EU is doing with Norway.

- “The level playing field”. Several topics are integrated in this chapter: state subsidies, taxation, environmental protection, labor standards and competition. Of all the previously listed topics, subsidies provided by the government poses the most problems. Why? Subsidies for sectoral development or economic aid granted to enterprises in difficulty, especially public companies, are under strict control as a result of European legislation. So far, the rules have been applied, very loosely, to all member countries. Mostly, during this period of COVID. But GB is afraid that in their case rules will be strictly enforced from 2021 onwards. To put this into numbers, in 2018, England affected 0.34% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Remarkably low compared to the European average of 0.76% or Germany’s 1.45% or Hungary 1.79% (26). The EU wants GB to abide by these rules from now on. Instead, England states that “once the transition period is over, it will no longer follow EU rules” and will invest where it sees fit. The course is clear and set even if it has not been revealed: investments in the development of high technology, Artificial Intelligence (AI) (27) and underdeveloped regions where the Conservative Party won seats belonging to the Labor party (60 places). Essentially, Boris Johnson’s honoring his electoral promises (28). Michel Barnier declared in a press conference on 23.07.2020, “We have no visibility on the intention of the United Kingdom regarding its future internal subsidy control regime” (sic!). The EU believes that rapid sectoral development could lead to unfair competition. This phenomenon exists between the EU and China as well as the EU and the USA and is the subject of intense discussions before a free trade agreement can be signed. In this context, the EU threatens with the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and the United Kingdom responds: “We are a nation of inventors. The United Kingdom will follow the World Trade Organization’s subsidy rules from 1 January 2020” (29). Isn’t AIRBUS a company funded by EU governments: am I wrong? Fair play does not exist in politics!

- The Court of Justice of the European Union “The CJEU will continue to have jurisdiction over any proceedings brought before it against or against the United Kingdom before the end of the transitional period” (30) despite the fact that the last English judge, Christopher Vajda, was released from office early 2020. Furthermore, on the rights of EU citizens, the CJEU has the final say in a process involving a European citizen and any English legal / physical entity until 2028. And in the case of the Protocol on Ireland / Northern Ireland, the jurisdiction of the CJEU extends for an indefinite period. But what is most paradoxical is that the Union demands of England (“taking into account that English legislation contains European legislative concepts”, Art. 170, 174 of the Brexit Agreement) is that in case of a dispute between parties (EU / UK) and the need for identifying a third party arbitrator to settle a solution, England should ask for an interpretation of the concept at the CJEU (sic!). In other words, if the wolf has eaten a sheep and the herd decides to prosecute, the appointed judge would be the wolf’s brother.

Conclusion,

- I would say that Charles de Gaulle was right when half a century ago he said “nature, structure, conjuncture, specific to England, differs profoundly from that of the continents.” Since then, all European leaders have tried to prove him wrong but have ultimately had to resign and find their way back to the General’s conclusion(sic!). In fact, the visionary French politician would predict and defend other theses worthy of consideration and which having been overlooked have led to poor management and brought the EU to the brink of major crises. Both the issue of immigration and the unlimited enlargement of the EU are problems that need to be resolved quickly. It is evident that the resistance towards the proposed solutions increases regardless of whose side they come from. The solutions must be based on a historical, cultural and anticipatory realities based on all member countries. Which is not the case today. The fact that the EU provides support favoring some castes and minorities to the detriment of normality and the majority, weakens the unity within the organization especially at a time when unity is imperative. Seemingly, those closely united around religious beliefs and political cults will win. “Divide et impera!”

- The political program of the British PM, Boris Johnson, can be found in the resignation letter addressed to Mrs. May from 07.08.2018. Needless to look elsewhere. Brand analysts and the international press try interpretations which they call subtle. What is there to interpret: “[the people] were told that they would be able to manage their own immigration policy, repatriate the money in the UK currently spent by the EU and, above all, that they would be able to pass laws independently and in the interest of the people of this country “, “We have postponed crucial decisions — including preparations for a ‘no-deal’, as I argued in my letter last November”, “[we have] large portions of the economy still stuck in the EU system and without the UK having control on this system ”,“ the opening of negotiations seems to imply the acceptance that we will not be able to make our own laws ”, that we have to accept huge amounts of European legislation, without changing an iota, because [we are told] it is essential for health our economy and we do not have the opportunity to influence how they are made. In this sense, we are really moving towards colonial status.” “If a country cannot pass a law to save the lives of cyclists — when this proposal is supported at every level of the British government — then I do not see how that country can be called truly independent”. “It is also clear that by handing over control of our rules on agri-food goods and products (and many more), it will make it much more difficult to make free trade agreements.” Transparency and clear explicit ideas do not allow room for any interpretation: we are not talking about possible speculations. Especially, since words have always been followed by facts: “London does not want the European Early Warning and Response System (EWRS) pandemic warning.” (The Telegraph, 01.03.2020), “The US and England have signed a new cooperation treaty in the field of Artificial Intelligence Research and Development” (25.09.2020 www.uk.reuters.com), England no longer wants to participate in the European program Galileo (The Telegraph, 25.09.2020), “The British Government launches £ 200 million port infrastructure development fund to build new border facilities” (www.gov.uk, 02.10.2020), “I am concerned that we have too little time to resolve all issues before the European Council on October 15. “(David Frost, www.reuters.com, 02.10.2020). The British Prime Minister’s request on Brexit is in fact, apparently, simple. The EU’s answer to the British demand is equally simple: “Canada is an 11-hour flight and has an EU trade of 55 billion / year, while the UK is a 70-minute flight from Brussels and has an EU trade of 500 billion/ year”.(Michel Barnier’s speech addressed to students at ESCP Business School, Paris, 26.02.2020).

-The need for a mechanism within the EC to deal with possible requests for “unexpected exits” from the European Union should be stressed. The cleavages between Central Europe, the North and the South of the continent are deepening. These divergences are highlighted ideologically, politically, culturally. The Union already functions on three distinct levels which have once more been demonstrated since the beginning of the COVID pandemic persisting even today. It is obvious, that not everyone agrees with this statement. Some continue to “get drunk on cold water” and believe that the EU is united and working admirably well. In reality, Britain’s exit from the select European circle is due to the process of leveling attitudes in mass society where organizations repress subjects (spring 1973, Willits, Fern K & Co, College Station, Vol. 38, Iss 1:36). A concept that does not apply to the Anglo-Saxons. Rationalists believe that the only path to knowledge and progress is logic. While empiricists believe that knowledge comes from repeated observation and experience. Europe largely represents the tagma of rationalists. The Anglo-Saxons represent empiricists. Lawyers, mathematicians are rationalists. Journalists, doctors or researchers are empiricists. In information technology these two categories have joined forces (hackers are empirical and model engineers and theorists are rationalists). In a system of inter-human relations, the collaboration between them failed. Charles de Gaulle was right!

- A possible alliance between the USA and Great Britain, in any field, is as problematic for the EU. While some progress others remain static and unimaginative. Germany and recently France are making gestures of relational accommodation with Russia (see Libya, Nagorno-Karabakh, Nord Stream 2). But Russia’s maneuvers are still too brutal for a return to normality. The United States President Donald Trump has long understood that a relaxation with Russia would lead to increased global stability. But the international media has a different opinion. It highlights only the negative sides of the multitude of goals that Trump has achieved. They see the “glass half empty”. If you cut their budgets, you can’t expect anything courteous from them, Mr. President (at the beginning of his term, CNN lost $ 4 billion / year in contracts with the US Government)! All guns are pointed at Trump as they were on Boris during the 2016 and 2019 campaigns. The decadence of ideas promoted by the national/international media is dramatic (BBC News “Trump spends first night in hospital after Covid-19 diagnosis”, 2 and 3 October 2020 mentions that Trump is obese, Twitter attaches comments to the messages of President Trump, Radio Prague International from 06.02.2020). Here, Europe through her feminine and qualified voice, Vice-President of the European Commission Ms Věra Jourová, is in favor of the lack of principles promoted by the media. Indeed, it must be accepted that not many people know from where the “wind blows”.

Three years ago, I proposed the ETRA communication model. Where “E” is the emitter (source) or politician (who issues and enforces the laws), “T” the transformer or the Media (transforms information and directs the masses in a certain direction), “R” the receiver or the masses of people and “A” the articulatory element or information that comes from the daily dynamics of events. I was saying then that “T ‘and” E “coexist well in order to manipulate” R. But always with a “T” at the helm of events. At present we are dealing with an attempt to overturn a situation in which “T” (Mass-media) tries to take over destinies and call itself an “E” (political) that can easily be manipulate and dominate. We have often witnessed this in recent years. Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, on the other hand, defeated the system imposed by the Mass Media and are trying to bring it back to the normal parameters. This is the sense in which, the change of leadership at the BBC and the fight that President Donald Trump is waging with “fake news”, can be interpreted. The masses or public opinion (“R”) in this game of faith has mixed feelings. Is it true or not? (according to statistics only 50% of readers check their sources of information). As in that joke: What are you doing John? I have mixed feelings. How so? My mother-in-law died falling into the abyss with my new car. If Donald Trump wins the November election, Boris Johnson will have a strong ally and Europe will have major problems everywhere. If the election is won by Joe Biden, America will begin a process of normalization with Europe (but nothing will ever be the same as before) and England will be forced to accept many of the EU’s demands. Until then No Deal!

PhD Professor 12.10.2020

Basile Neacsa

1. The Battle of Hastings in 1066 marks the birth of English national sentiment.

2. Guillaume, your duke, our king, my ancestor!” — Declaration of Prince Charles 1987, Caen-France on the occasion of the 900th anniversary of the Battle of Hastings.

3. Adam Smith, founder of the concept of “laisser faire, laisser passer” (“The Wealth of Nations”, 1776, London Ed.) And John Keynes, who show that in order to revive the economy in times of crisis, the state needs to invest heavily. The General theory of employment, interest and money ‘’, Ed.Palgrave Macmillan, 1936).

4. Winston Churchill, speech in the British Parliament, 18.06.1940.

5. Winston Churchill, speech in Westminister Hall, London, 30.11.1954.

6. Between 1937–1940, Edward Halifax, the British Foreign Secretary (1938–1940) who was part of the German-inspired Cliveden Group, urged W. Churchill to explore the possibility of starting negotiations. peace with Hitler.

7. Winston Churchill, Speech in the British Parliament, June 4, 1940- ‘’ We will continue to the end, we will fight in France, we will fight on the seas and oceans, we will fight with increasing confidence and increasing strength in the air, we will defend our island, regardless of cost, we will fight on the beaches, we will fight on the plains, we will fight on the fields and on the streets, we will fight on the hills; we never surrender, and even if, I do not believe for a moment, this island or much of it would be subjugated and starving, then our Overseas Empire, armed and guarded by the British fleet, would continue to fight, until In a good day of God, the new world, with all its power and strength, steps towards the salvation and liberation of the old world ‘’.

8. Press conference of the President of France, General Charles de Gaulle from 14.01.1963.

9. Ibid.

10. Transcript of the meeting of the Council of Ministers from 3.05.1967.

11. Ibid.

12. The Telegraph, 11.05.2016.

13. Le Monde 11.07.2016

14. Ibid.

15. https://www.thejournal.ie/boris-johnson-elected-tory-party-leader. 23/07/2019

16. “There is one or more officials in the British Parliament of a political party who ensure the discipline of the party in a legislature. They must ensure that their party colleagues attend the voting sessions and vote in accordance with their party’s official policy. Members who vote against party policy can be expelled from the party which actually happened on 03.09.2019.- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip_(politics)

17. Winston Churchill, BBC London- 04.06.1945.

18. BBC News, 23.05.2019, “Farage would do deal with devil for Brexit”.

19. Sunday Times ’, Gabriel Pogrund, https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/, 07.10.2020.

20. The Telegraph, 14.09.2020, statement by David Frost-Chief Negotiator of Great Britain.

21. https://www.farmlandgrab.org/post/view/29033-l-ukraine-un-monstre-agricole-aux-portes-de-l-ue

22. Politico, Matei Rosca, 01.10.2020, British-American Alliance for Finance (BAFA) aims to get a place at the table for industry in trade talks between the US and the UK ”.

23. https://fisheriesalliance.eu/, “All in the same boat”.

24. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8039/

25. www.reuters.com/ -15.09.2020.

26. State aid scoreboard 2019, pp.60–87. EC DG Competition, State aid Policy and Strategy.

27. Ibid, p.87, investments in R&D, innovation, venture capital.

28. BBC News, 07.09.2020, Conservative MP’s launch “leveling up taskforce”.

29. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government, said Alok Sharma, Minister for Business on 09.09.2020.

30. Brexit agreement, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_18_6422.