After 47 years as a member of the European Union, the United Kingdom left the community on 31 January 2020. Once the transition period had ended, all the changes that had been established and agreed upon came into effect on 1 January 2021, including the trade agreement which was closed just one week before the deadline.  What do you think about it all?

It was the best option given the circumstances. We are in the middle of a global pandemic, the United Kingdom is battling a new outbreak of COVID-19 leading several countries to cut ties with the island and more than a thousand commercial cargo lorries were stuck in Calais on their way to Dover, which caused unprecedented chaos, unrest and concern for the supply of goods. Negotiations have not been smooth, but they have finally been able to reach an understanding and avoid a hard Brexit, which would have been the worst case scenario.

Despite the agreement, there is still a long road ahead that involves fitting all the pieces back together to ensure both parties are satisfied.

We mustn't forget that the United Kingdom incorporated the acquis communautaire (Community acquis) for almost half a century whilst it was a member of the European Union. After so many years and with such well-established relationships, it is difficult to reach an agreement on all aspects that is favourable for both parties. Take fishing for example, one of the main sticking points of the negotiation. They have agreed upon an adjustment period of five and a half years, in which time the equal access laws to fishing in British waters will remain unchanged. Bearing in mind the different specificities, one precedent is Greenland, who left the European Community in 1985, but had to wait until 2013 to see the commercial fisheries partnership agreement with the European Union come into force.

How is it that fishing has been and continues to be such a major stumbling block?

The Secretary of State for Wales, Simon Hart, has always argued that for both the industry and Welsh citizens, the United Kingdom's sovereignty over fishing in British waters is non-negotiable. If we look again at Greenland, fishing was also one of the main points of conflict. Following their exit in 1985, they signed a fisheries agreement with the European Union outlining four protocols that had specific conditions over a certain period of time. In 2003, a midterm review of the agreement was carried out, leading to a decision to split the general agreement into two: an agreement associated with ongoing fishing for commercial purposes and a partnership agreement that finally came into force ten years later. Now, there will be a five-year ceasefire with the UK, but when they sit down to negotiate next time it will be a different story. It will require a lot of patience and many years of negotiations, reviews and modifications.

In other areas, a free trade agreement has been established without tariffs or quotas, which guarantees fair competition and respect for Community standards, a fundamental concern for the European Union.

The European Union has some very strict regulations regarding disloyal conduct under its competition law, which aim to promote fair competition in the market. The European Commission is the body responsible for monitoring anti-competitive practices, which range from public or private funding to loans, subsidies or tax exemption. When they talk of a level playing field, it means that if the United Kingdom wanted to continue to participate in the Common Market, they would have to abide by the rules. It would not have been fair for European companies, who are unable to receive this kind of funding, to compete in the same market as publicly-subsidised British companies.

Before finalising the agreement, there was talk of several models that could inspire the new relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union: the cases of Norway, Canada, Australia or Turkey for example, but in the end they came to an unprecedented agreement. Why was that?

The United Kingdom has some incomparable links with the European project, which are much stronger than those of previous models. The ad hoc agreement takes the island’s specific profile and its historical baggage of over four decades into account.  The new scenario, at least for now, brings with it an end to free movement of people, goods, services and capital between the United Kingdom and the European Union, and could even cause territorial problems that will be difficult for the island to solve constitutionally.

Can you give us an example?

The border between Ireland and Northern Ireland may shake the Good Friday Agreement, opening up the possibility of holding a referendum for Ireland to re-join the EU. There is also the question of Scotland and the possibility of another referendum for independence, and then there’s Gibraltar, which would directly affect Spain. We will have to keep an eye on how these relationships evolve. Whatever the outcome, this agreement is just the start, and the framework of relationships will continue to be drafted over the course of many years, until it is more definitive.

Was it inevitable that Britain would end up leaving?

The United Kingdom has always had doubts about the European project. Before the Brexit vote in 2016, there was another referendum held in 1975 in which the British people were asked if they wanted to continue as members of the European Economic Community: Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community? The problems that arose during Margaret Thatcher’s term in office, the reservations with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the refusal to introduce the Euro, are just some examples that have led to the current conflict of interests.

And this is because the United Kingdom was vetoed from entering the European Communities on two occasions...

It is impossible to understand the situation from a historical perspective without mentioning Charles de Gaulle. The president of the French Republic vetoed the UK’s entrance into the European Communities twice, first in 1963 then again in 1967. The double veto came from his defending French influence on Europe and the fact that Gaulle thought that its history, external interests (the United States of America and the Commonwealth) and the United Kingdom’s insular character had led the British to create a political and economic structure that was different to that of continental Europe and which, once inside, would invigorate the European project.

But, in the end they have failed to invigorate it. They have instead shaken the foundations of the European Union’s legal system. Do you think we will see other countries follow suit?

We cannot deny that it has been a hard blow to the European Union, which is why it was vital to reach an understanding with the United Kingdom and establish positive relationships. Now, with the agreement signed, the initial impact will mellow and end up being minimal. But both parties will need to invest time and energy to make that happen. As things stand, I do not think there will be other cases like Brexit, but recent international political events have shown us that, in the long run, we cannot rule anything out.