Article content continued

In recent days Canada has received additional mentions in the Brexit negotiations, notably in direct sparring between May and Donald Tusk, president of the European Commission. In comments Wednesday, Tusk rejected May’s plan to leave the single market, leave the customs union and leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. “Therefore,” said Tusk, “it should come as no surprise that the only remaining possible model is a free trade agreement. I hope that it will be ambitious and advanced — and we will do our best, as we did with other partners, such as Canada recently.”

Nobody quite sees Canada’s trade deal with the EU as a model, and May had already rejected it. In a speech last Friday she said “a free trade agreement similar to that which Canada has recently negotiated with the EU… would mean a significant reduction in our access to each other’s markets compared to that which we currently enjoy.” May also rejected the Norway model “where we would stay in the single market (but) would mean having to implement new EU legislation automatically and in its entirety.”

As May briskly put it: “We will not accept the rights of Canada and the obligations of Norway.” To which Tusk replied: “The EU cannot agree to grant the UK the rights of Norway with the obligations of Canada.”

That Britain could become the Canada of Europe has exercised the haughty pontificates of Euro-ism

The heart of the Brexit debate is a form of globalism versus a form of nationalism. Back in 1994, The Wall Street Journal reported on a paper by Australian economist Katherine West, who wrote that true globalism (her word) “requires British Government and business to be free and flexible enough to make the most of opportunities whenever and wherever they occur in the world of economy.” That would not be possible, said West, if Britain allows itself to be locked into the “constraining political and economic straightjacket” of Europe.