The UK is far more important than your collapsed Brexit, Boris Johnson

As when the eight territories of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, vast and multicultural, were eventually reduced to become simply a confederation of Serbia and Montenegro, then of Serbia, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland seems on the brink of shrinking over the next few years. years to become England more Wales – and no doubt in the future, England. As things grow, Boris Johnson will have the chance to hang on to Cornwall, baduming he has not left No 10 by then.

So much for the UK, that Mr. Johnson always has the pleasure of calling it "the most successful political and economic union in history." It may well be that he is the last Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, as we know him, and that will be largely his fault. Spending £ 300 million on projects in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, posing as the union's minister and throwing up on the "great quartet", will not save the United Kingdom from its imminent disintegration.

The country faces the deadliest threat since the partition of Ireland in 1922: the Brexit and the democratic challenges that arise. Needless to say, it was Mr. Johnson's participation in the 2016 referendum that led us to this pbad. The citizens of Northern Ireland and Scotland voted in favor of keeping them in the European Union and rightly stated that nothing allowed them to separate from them, and certainly not on the type of non-agreement currently envisaged as a "supposition" of the government. continue on.

The difference between these two parts of the kingdom and, for example, London or Bath (which are also enthusiastic regions of Rest) lies in the fact that the Scots and Northern Irish have the right, under certain conditions, to organize a plebiscite to determine their own future. They too can vote to leave a union. David Cameron has already pointed out that the union of England and Scotland was worth more than the Brexit issue; Mr. Johnson has to say it and realize the same truth.

Indeed, the arguments put forward by the British ministers, under the leadership of Mr. Johnson, are ironic enough to explain why it would be crazy economically and politically that the Scots and Northern Irish withdraw from the United Kingdom while extolling the virtues of "regaining control" under a tough Brexit. Indyref2 in Scotland, as it is called, and a border survey in Northern Ireland will follow shortly after a Brexit without agreement, and the chances that they remain in the UK are diminishing, each day bringing new evidence of the government's determination to prosecute Brexit, including the version without agreement, "by all means necessary" before 31 October. At the very least, this is not what was promised during the 2016 Holiday Campaign.

It is remarkable to see how much the ministers are willing to call their bluff (baduming that is the case). Downing Street is now informed that Mr Johnson does not even want to meet with European leaders to discuss Brexit before they agree to give up Irish support. Rather than travel to Brussels, Dublin, Paris or Berlin to face each other, Mr. Johnson merely makes phone calls and plays reluctantly.

Perhaps Mr. Johnson, like Mr. Gove, thinks that the prospect of a chaotic Brexit without agreement will prompt them to give in and ask thanks to the British. Maybe they're going. But perhaps they also read the British press and their diplomats report on the intelligence they can gather in London and realize that it is an extraordinary and totally self-destructive attempt to bluff on the part of the British – a game chicken, a trick.

Even if this was not the case, and that the idea of ​​a Brexit without agreement is real and that the Parliament is unable to stop it, then who will suffer from it? Yes, some companies in France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany in particular – but the British are likely to lose a lot, a lot more. The European Union might know that it should impose its own rigid border in Ireland, because the British would refuse to do so on the theatrical level. He would not want to do that. But the EU would also oppose to be cheated of 39 billion pounds, or more, that the United Kingdom owes them, and to uncertainty about the rights of their citizens as nationals from the EU (and not after their conversion into British citizens). To what extent would the EU be willing to grant a free trade and security deal in such circumstances? It would be more of a cold war than a warm partnership.

Divorces have the habit of becoming wicked, and these are not exceptions. The UK's divorcing EU, Scottish divorcing of English, Northern Irish divorcing British and remarrying in the European Union – these are traumas that could be managed with good will once a century. Today, they will be concatenated over a few years. The 2020s are approaching and seem to be years of political conflict and economic crisis. Who voted for this?