[I felt the need to write about something else...]
Britain. Europe. Two people who eventually managed to get
married back in 1973, once the objecting parent in the shape of France’s Charles
de Gaulle had passed away, thus opening the door to their union. As in any
marriage, some effort at compromise and adjustment to each other’s behaviours
and idiosyncrasies was required, yet the whole was greater than the sum of the
parts. With Europe’s support, Britain finally achieved settlement to a hitherto
intractable and long-running dispute with Northern Ireland on its side of the
family, whereas Europe, with Britain’s support, welcomed family members back
into the fold who had been frozen out behind the Iron Curtain for decades. And
yet, a problem common among many married couples, was money management, which
became a significant source of friction within the couple.
From the get-go, Britain wasn’t too keen on Europe’s CAP
outgoings. The issue remained intractable until a marriage guidance counsellor called
Thatcher persuaded Europe that compromise could be achieved by contributing
slightly less to the household budget in the shape of the 1984 “opt-out”. And
then there were things that one partner did that, try as they might, the other
partner simply couldn’t get to grips with. Such as the Euro, for example. Or deciding
to let certain family members play with the Euro (I mention no names). Or then
beating up on that family member (whose name remains un-mentioned) when they
got all the rules of the game wrong… But, hey – unlike your friends, you don’t
get to choose family. But it’s not a healthy sign when the partners in a
marriage decide on having separate bank accounts.
So at this point I
think we’ll skip forward past the acrimonious accusations of whose fault it
really is – in a divorcing marriage both sides are invariably at fault even if
you really, really don’t think you’ve done anything wrong (if you think that,
then the communication broke down years ago, so it’s your fault). One partner
went to see their lawyer and, because lawyers don’t get paid for being marriage
counsellors, divorce papers got served on the other. And as with all consummated
and fruitful marriages (I mean divorces), the most contentious issues revolve
around who gets the house, who gets custody of the kids, and how do we split up
the pets that we both had while we were still together? Meaning, respectively:
the EU divorce bill; the EU nationals living in Britain and vice versa; and
Northern Ireland and Gibraltar.
The house: think of it as the common home established by
Britain and Europe, but which Britain has decided to leave. You can ‘not pay’,
but ‘not pay’ is rather like saying “I’m leaving, you move out!” Far safer – as
far as divorce proceedings go – is to ‘pay’, that is to say “I’m leaving, and I’ll
help you keep the house”. The kids: “…well, I’d love to continue caring for our
children, but now that I’m on my own again – you see – I need to be free…” Most
divorce lawyers would probably take a dim view of this sentiment and advise
against expressing it during the proceedings. The kids were born to both
parents, and duties and obligations that arise as a result need to continue.
Treating one child as less deserving than another wouldn’t cut it in a divorce
court and it certainly shouldn’t with EU or British nationals’ post-Brexit. The
pets: and the divorcing couple are particularly attached to them. We can’t
split up the pets without causing them serious emotional harm, and neither side
wants to ‘give’ the pet to the other in perpetuity, so the best the couple can
do now that they are separating is to find some way of sharing. Which means
that they need to work out how.
It’s not too late to go back to marriage guidance
counselling…
