There were incentives for British Prime Minister Theresa May and US President Donald Trump to meet in Washington last week-end.  The  changing of the guard in the White House and the UK's  torrid  transit to  Brexit formed a compelling backdrop .Those two events may dawn as   game changers but are only  subject to stringent reality checks .
In so many ways, Donald Trump has signalled a certain messianic isolationism and an intent to   form  new alliances and cut  bilateral deals. With such 'ground-breaking' agendas of the new  incumbent in Washington, who could be  more welcome to the US president to engage with  than a British prime minister. Particularly when the latter is  dealing with a pesky EU. She  is tasked to steer Britain out of the EU by 2019, a process Donald's far-right predilections have  chimed in with. Â
Trump on a populist mission had leaned to The United Kingdom Independent Party(UKIP) chief  Nigel  Farage who had spearheaded  the  Brexit campaign. Little wonder, Nigel  was the  first British politician to be  embraced  by  Donald  Trump with open arms after his stunning victory.
 Much water flowed down the river Thames since then. There has been clamouring from both sides of the aisle that Theresa  place the  plans for  transition out of the EU upfront on the floor of the House without ado. The matter went to the court. Now the government is to bring a bill to parliament to start the legal Brexit process "within days after the SC ruled against Theresa May's plans and decreed that MPs were entitled to vote  whether to trigger Articl 50". In other words, the government cannot trigger Article 50 without an act of parliament authorising it to do so.
So if allaying the fear of  isolationism was considered  necessary for the  Trump administration, Theresa May, for her part, has had  a situation cast in stone to step up  transition on a solid basis to meet the deadline. The court verdict was a slap on her wrist to take a  right course of action on Brexit.
The British prime minister might well have thought along two lines: First, in view of the special relations Britain has had historically with the US she could turn to Washington for a trade deal as part of preparation for the exit. Secondly, Theresa might have aimed at  cooperative  understanding  with  the American president to strengthen her negotiating position with the  EU. If Theresa May's post-meeting comments are anything to go  by, it seems her talks  with  Trump may have  mellowed  his positions on continuing sanctions against Russia  for its   aggression on Eukrane. If I heard Theresa  right she said that both leaders affirmed their  belief in NATO.
But  Trump  is known to have virtually  ridiculed Article 5 of the Atlantic Charter whereby if any member country were to be  attacked, it would be deemed to  be an attack on  other members of the alliance. Trump  seems to maintain that a  country failing to pay up  mandatory contributions to Alliance's coffer would not  be entitled to the collective protection clause. NATO protagonists argue that Article  5 was invoked after 9/11 against al-Quaeda,Taleban etc. and  that there is no  ' cost effective' consideration unlike  in business where a security exigency arises needing prompt response.Â
 The  implication  is that  in defence  of  democracy, civil liberties and rule of law, you are better served by a principled intervention. One may however question how justified a particular intervention has been and whether it has unleashed forces inimical to the best interest of the humanity. That is where perhaps a reform of the NATO finds a resonance to conform to the vastly changed objective realities since the cold war days.
With Brexit  pencilled in for 2019 and multilateral trade pacts being abandoned by the US, prevailing trade figures between big partners need to be analysed to project on the likely degree of  shift in the present trading equations. Suffice it to say that the  changes will be slow in coming and that any  paradigm shift  should be ruled out.Â
The trade statistics between the  USA and the UK; between the  EU and the  UK; and between the US and the EU are as follows:
A) Trade balance in favour of the UK against  the US in 2015 stood at  $ 9.1b;
B)The EU-27 exports worth $290 b to the UK while the latter exports goods and services valued at $ 220 to EU. So the UK runs a deficit of $70 b with the EU;and
C) The EU and the US are  main trading partners with a large share of world trade transacted between them. The EU's exports to the US are greater than its imports.Â
So the EU 27 has  trade  surplus with both the US and  UK. Â
Pragmatism  dictates that neither the US nor the UK can afford to pare down  their  relationship with the European Union.
A former US ambassador to the European Union Anthony Gardner, warned, "A true free trade agreement  between UK and EU won't be  easy or fast for many reasons. A US-UK(trade deal) won't be easy or quick either. It will take several years at least and depends on UK-EU trade relationship."
As a EU spokesperson said of the Theresa attempt at sketching a trade deal to US president, "You can read the menu but not order  food."Â
safarihi43@gmail.com
Â
The US-UK-EU triangle
Marksman | Published: January 31, 2017 20:21:45 | Updated: October 20, 2017 05:49:11
The US-UK-EU triangle
Share if you like