For me, as a convinced European, Europe has always been about far more than a market. Europe is mostly about preserving and promoting a way of life: our values, the things that we care about, our civilization, the things which go to make up our European identity. The United Kingdom is incontestably an important part of European civilization and therefore it must remain a part of the European dream. From that broader point of view, Brexit is deeply regrettable and will have profound consequences, but it is not the end of the story. A new relationship between the EU and the UK must be found and, as this book will show, all sorts of models have evolved that may illuminate and perhaps even inspire the negotiators’ work. We know the equation they have to solve and that has not changed for a long time: how can the UK remain as distant as possible from European political integration while benefiting as much as possible from European economic unification? Different solutions have been found in the past, and will need to be found in the future.

It would be a mistake, in that context, to confuse the current negotiating stances of the two sides with what that relationship will turn out to be in the longer run. From a swift glance at the “to-do” list – the telephone directory of issues that will need to be settled and negotiated – it is clear that it is simply impossible for everything to be done within one year, nor even within two or three, were an extension to the transitional period to be requested and agreed. That was true before the Covid-19 crisis erupted and is even more true now. What is possible, and hopefully probable, is some sort of an interim agreement that settles most of the issues that need to be settled in the short term and establishes some general principles according to which all the other issues will be negotiated in due course. And then there will be, as in any agreement, implementation schedules or sequences or transitions. At least from the trade agreement point of view, such a staggered process would appear to be a “no-brainer”.

It would be a mistake, also, to confuse political rhetoric with underlying relationships.