WHEN THE trade deal between the EU and Britain was done, there was little celebration in Brussels. Instead, the moaning began. “This is a dark day for the European fishing industry,” declared Gerard van Balsfoort, chairman of the European Fisheries Alliance, a lobby group for fishermen. Indeed, conflict over matters piscatorial dominated the final stages of the negotiations, leaving economists flabbergasted that such a tiny sector could hook so much attention.
Yet there is more to life than mackerel. On the whole, the EU is content if not happy with how things turned out. From the union’s perspective, it was important that Britain’s departure was orderly; that it left Britain with worse trading access than the status quo; and, consequent to that, that it removed any temptation for other countries to follow the Brexiteers out. The EU has a good claim to say it managed all three.
Britain’s exit followed a rigid process dictated by the EU. Although the Vote Leave campaign had pledged not to use Article 50, the official process for leaving laid out in the EU’s founding treaty, the British ultimately triggered it. (EU officials privately claimed credit for goading them to do so.) Negotiations took place according to the EU’s schedule. The remaining 27 member states were not divided, which back in the mists of 2016 had been a...
