> At a time when the growth of global trade is slowing and there are signs that protectionist instincts are on the rise in many part of the world, Europe has a responsibility to stand up for free trade in the interest of all our citizens
This is pretty rich. Protectionist "instincts" are on the rise in the UK and the US first and foremost today, so maybe those countries are not in the best position to lecture the rest of the world against them?
The crux of the matter is, countries have no friends and no moral imperatives, they only have interests; May's letter is very short on what the interests of the EU are, to try to give the UK a "nice" deal. How would the EU benefit from a deal -- any deal at all -- vs no deal?
(Also, this is a small detail but maybe not an insignificant one, negotiations cost money; if there is no hope of gaining anything, why should EU negotiators even show up? It would save money to simply not talk at all).
> At a time when the growth of global trade is slowing and there are signs that protectionist instincts are on the rise in many part of the world, Europe has a responsibility to stand up for free trade in the interest of all our citizens
This is pretty rich. Protectionist "instincts" are on the rise in the UK and the US first and foremost today, so maybe those countries are not in the best position to lecture the rest of the world against them?
The crux of the matter is, countries have no friends and no moral imperatives, they only have interests; May's letter is very short on what the interests of the EU are, to try to give the UK a "nice" deal. How would the EU benefit from a deal -- any deal at all -- vs no deal?
(Also, this is a small detail but maybe not an insignificant one, negotiations cost money; if there is no hope of gaining anything, why should EU negotiators even show up? It would save money to simply not talk at all).
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/29_03_17_article5...