Either Michel Barnier (the chief EU negotiator for Brexit) is off his head or there are fundamental misconceptions being held by our government’s Brexiteer Big Beasts. The following are some salient points apparently made by Mr Barnier speaking ‘frankly and sincerely’ about Brexit recently in Brussels to the European Economic and Social Committee. A more detailed analysis is provided on EUreferendum.com, Brexit: Barnier – “that is not possible”.
Point 1 – on being outside the Single Market and Customs Union
“There will be no business as usual. The UK will become a third country at the end of March 2019”.
Point 2 – on the UK cherry-picking (through negotiations)
“There can be no sector by sector participation in the single market: you cannot leave the single market and then opt-in to those sectors. You cannot be half-in and half-out of the single market”
Point 3 – on being able to ‘influence’ the EU from the outside
“The EU must maintain full sovereignty for deciding regulations: the EU is not only a big marketplace. It is also an economic and social community where we adopt common standards. All third countries must respect our autonomy to set rules and standards. And I say this at the moment when the UK has decided to leave this community and become a third country.”
Point 4 – on the British Side being out of touch with the reality of the EU
“I am not sure whether they have been fully understood across the Channel”. “I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and build a custom union to achieve ‘frictionless trade’, ……that is not possible”.
Point 5 – on the status of UK having left the EU – comprehensive free trade agreement (even if agreed before then doesn’t change this status)
“Whatever the outcome of the negotiations, at midnight on 29 March 2019, the United Kingdom will at the present stage be a third State, which will therefore not have the same facilities and rights as a State Member of the European Union. It’s its choice. Not ours”.
Point 6 – on trading from the outside being more difficult (e.g. customs duties and non-tariff barriers exist)
“a trade relationship with a country that does not belong to the European Union obviously involves frictions”.
Point 7 – on no deal (trading under World Trade Organisation Rules) being a practical non-starter
“I therefore want to be very clear …to my mind there is no reasonable justification for the ‘no deal’ scenario. There is no sense in making the consequences of Brexit even worse”.
Point 8 – on cutting losses arising from the new relationship between the UK and EU
“Business should assess, with lucidity, the negative consequences of the UK’s choice on trade and investment. And prepare to manage them”.
Commentary:
Mr Barnier’s words carry weight and should act as a timely wakeup call. He is after all the EU’s top negotiator for Brexit and he was speaking to a serious forum; unlike the superficial, juvenile posturing routinely on display in the House of Commons. Mr Barnier’s team has already established hegemony over the Brexit negotiations which no amount of wishful thinking or bluster from our side is going to change. Our current Article 50 negotiating mess is considered in these articles published on UKIP Daily:
Crisis Management of BREXIT Article 50 Negotiations,
Mayday! Mayday! Mayday! BREXIT! Mayday!
Mrs May’s and Mr Davis’s Great EU Escape Master Plan.
Our negotiating position has always contained a fatal flaw: there has never been an actual, comprehensive and sensible plan for leaving the EU – a plan which considered the issues involved and devised suitable mitigations (of adverse effects) where necessary. Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne purposefully prevented one being prepared (by the Civil Service) because it would undermine their ‘Project Fear’ attempt to frighten us into voting to stay in the EU. The official Leave Campaign in the Referendum never had a plan, just the aspiration to ‘Take Back Control’ without any idea of how to achieve this outcome.
The only thoughtful, sensible and detailed plan I know of is Flexcit (running to 400 pages) from the Leave Alliance. This real plan is accompanied by detailed explanatory notes (Brexit Monographs) on the subjects and issues involved. There is also an ebook Brexit – The First Year which is available for download and purchase here. These works do show up the government’s efforts to date as being at best aspirations (‘pie in the sky’) without any idea of how to achieve them or assessment of the risks and unwanted, adverse side-effects.
The absence of a serious plan has enabled Mr Barnier’s team to go unchallenged. They have effectively snatched the strategically important ground for the Brexit negotiations through their detailed work. The void created without having a Brexit plan has also enabled various pundits, the media and politicians of all persuasions etc.to become ‘instant experts’ peddling their unsubstantiated claims and poor researched ‘solutions’ muddying the waters where detailed clarity is needed.
To conclude:
Mr Barnier has a conception of Brexit negotiations that is not shared (publicly at least) by our government. The main takeaway from Mr Barnier’s speech (and assessment) is that the UK is unprepared for Brexit or even to negotiate realistically based on the reality of dealing with the EU. A comprehensive free trade agreement finalised within two years, he claims, isn’t going to happen and would not solve all problems of seamless access to the Single Market. And it will not be all right in the end unless the UK’s Brexit negotiators understand what is actually involved.
Thanks Roger. UKIPs campaign for a EU referendum reached the point where tories feared losing their seats and power. So they conceded and granted the people a referendum. Just the threat of a UKIP electoral breakthrough was enough.
I am optimistic a good leader will emerge during UKIPs leadership process and take the fight to the unpatriotic mainstream parties.
Yet another indication that negotiation with the EU is an impossible dream. Of course as you say there was no preparation before the referendum and there has been little since. The so called Great Repeal Bill is nothing of the sort; all it does is excuse government ministers and civil servants from doing the necessary work, which is to examine in detail what those laws are and what is necessary to deal with them. Personally I would be happy to bin the lot and start with what we had in 1972.
As with any complex task it just needed a project plan and the will to get on with it. Far more complex issues are dealt with routinely outside government.
Heard earlier on the Farage LBC radio show that the ministers for Scotland and Wales along with communist corbyn have held or will hold meetings with Barnier.
This sob is bullying and creating the greatest difficulties for the UK and our leaving.
We should be senbding ministers to all the other countries to tell them that we have no interest in continuing talks with Barnier, as it is a waste of time. If they still want to trade with us, they should apply to Barnier to stop the messing around, otherweise we walk away. We should have done this mlong ago.
Sadly May is not upto the the job, but I believe that we need to back the silly moo and dictate terms that is to use Farage in debatinmg trade. He offered to do this for nothing and she denied him. What sort of business credentials does she have? None, she is just another career politician.
We should start to sign up trade deals now with other countries. It is madenss to wait for the expulsion. We, too, need to act tough. but do we have the people to do this? I do not believe so.
What is the worst the EU can do, throw us out? now that is an idea worth pursuiing!
The EU in the person of M Barnier has simply refused to negotiate . It rejects out of hand the proposals put forward so far by the UK and will no doubt continue to do so . Of course it is waiting for the Europhiles her in the UK to scupper the Brexit move . That will not happen and we will leave the EU on WTO terms . This will be the responsibility of the EU and they should accept that responsibility .
Personally I cannot see a problem . There will doubtless be cases arising which will cause problems for some organisations but for the most part , trade will continue and eventually everything will settle down . And of course , we would have escaped from gaol !!
Hopefully May will come to realise that the best way out is to repeal the treaties under the Vienna Convention.
Barnier is nothing but a negative bully-boy trying to put the frighteners on so we’ll back out of leaving. His favourite words are ‘not possibele’ or ‘impossible’. He cannot say anything ‘frankly or sincerely’. He is an undemocratic, lying EU apparachik through and through, NOT a reasonable negotiator.
As I’ve said before, there should be a complete rejection of Barnier by the UK. “Send us a proper ‘negotiator’ who knows what that word actually means, or forget the talks” should be the message.
Dear Sir
Having read Mr Nigel Moore’s comment to UKIP Daily dated 13th July 2017 he reminds me of a lot of people who seem to forget there is supposed to be a negotiation between the United Kingdom and the European Union. Please note that I put the UK before the EU.
The UK is quite clear on its position regarding trade and that is that UK would like a tariff free access to what is commonly called the single market. If the EU does not want to negotiate on this point then the trade with the EU will be under World Trade Organisation principles, the EU might wish to impose additional import duties. Under WTO principles the UK can apply the same import duties on imports from the EU.
As far as I know the UK will recognise the EU’s rules and regulations as far as the affect trade and product standards. The EU also has to recognise UK rules and regulations in order to trade with the UK.
By denying frictionless trade Mr Barnier has stated that there will be friction with the trade and agreements between the UK and the EU. That is Mr Barnier’s wish not the UK’s wish.
The attitude of Mr Barnier seems to leave no option other than “no deal”. The UK has stated its position therefore the EU has to make a counter offer. The lack of offers by the EU will lead to a ‘hard leave’ and, for the UK, the EU will be a third country (the 27 countries forming the EU will have no international status with the UK). The countries trading with the UK will be first and second countries.
Regarding EU citizens living in the UK I do not agree with EU citizens having more rights that UK citizens. Likewise the European Court of Justice should have no place in British Law. Will the EU accept Habeas Corpus to be applied to UK citizens arrested in the EU.
Is Article 50 about the future relationships between the UK and the EU? It would appear that the EU has added what is known as a divorce settlement to Article 50. Regarding the divorce bill the EU should have, this year, started reducing the cost of new 7 year programmes to avoid a cliff edge when the UK payments to the EU stop. Has it done so?
The hold up to any “leaving agreement” is the attitude of Westminster politicians who seem to want to ignore the result of the Remain/Leave referendum. The flip/flop attitude of the UK political parties towards the EU is totally unhelpful and could bring a firm demand for constitutional reform in the UK.
Project Fear continues on a daily basis from the likes of the BBC. The Tories are still divided and be prepared for the remainers to finesse the Brexit process. Barnier plays and adds to these fears – a clever tactic because the EU thinks that that the UK will want to stay in the EU. Barnier is simply a further manifestation of Project Fear. Time for us to walk away and get on with our new future with or without the cooperation of our continental “friends”.
There is one point (just one!) made by Barnier with which I agree:
Point 7 – on no deal (trading under World Trade Organisation Rules) being a practical non-starter
“There is no sense in making the consequences of Brexit even worse”.
He’s right – but it seems that every move he makes is intending to do just that. He has not budged an inch on his demands and continues to simply reject any proposals by the UK.
I can understand the government’s reluctance to exacerbate this transition but it seems at the moment that it is bending over backwards in an effort to appease the EU, the Labour Party, the Remoaners, Gina Miller et al. When is David Davis going to start saying “Non!”?
“Even worse” for the EU, seeing as they export far more to us than we do to them.
WE COULD LEAVE TOMORROW
We could declare UDI and put all services on a war footing with Power of Orders In Council granted to the PM and relevant Ministers to deal with all issues. This at least was possible with the small con majority before the disastrous GE a month ago; now any group of nasty treacherous MPs could overturn things backed by the evilbbc.
The sooner we leave the better and WTO rules would protect us, we dont need any negotiation. The benefits are immense – saving a billion pounds a month ‘membership’ fee, a tit for tat arrangement introduced at the behest of other EU countries who export more to us than vice versa. We could quickly lower tariffs on trade with non EU countries for products such as food and drink from NZ Oz Argentine USA and actually save money! We could begin the deportation of all false asylum seekers all foreign criminals and stop the NHS being used by health tourists. We could use some of the saved money to help establish some factories to produce products we currently import.
As for the EU it might well be a death blow if we did walk away as without our trade and £12 billion per year net it would go into a tailspin. We would be doing them a favour.
We should be imaginative in our approach – for example to save on balance of payments during this rapid transition period we should advocate a 18 months period where instead of EU countries we holiday in the UK itself thus boosting tourism and giving another shock to Brussels.
Very seriously we have to destroy the EU so that there is no going back. Everything that hurts the EU is important for the future freedom and prosperity of all Europe.
RUSSIA IS OUR FRIEND CULTURAL MARXISM OUR ENEMY
Well said, CK. This Flexit thing has been around for a long time and I don’t trust it I’m afraid. Leave means Leave, we should be inflexible about it. Had our craven Remain House of Parliament said that from the beginning there would have been no need for any of this.
Well citizenkain unfortunately the people trusted the elite to automatically accept the referendum result and implement the decision. To get the referendum decision implemented will take years of relentless pressure from the people. It needs the threat of mainstream parties losing seats for their MPs to pressure the government into breaking the links to the EU.
The people want an end to mass immigration and a clean break from the EU with our parliament taking all decisions for our nation. But the people still have too much faith in the mainstream parties. Just voting every few years in a GE and in a referendum is not nearly enough involvement to get results.
I think information and understanding the policial process are key. It was the Donald Trump campaign that prompted me joining UKIP and getting increasingly committed to political activism. The realisation of the extent of the hidden agendas. And what some of the agendas were. Following the whole process of Trump going from about a 0% rating within the Republican party to becoming president. And now the battle Trump has to achieve anything or even stay in power. Trump needs those who voted for him to keep backing him through the ups & downs to come.
UKIP will now need to provide years of pressure on the government to implement Brexit. To be effective in this task UKIP will need to win over the people again and keep their support until the task is accomplished. Information and evidence and facts and honest debate are needed to get this support.
Maximus,
That`s the best explanation of “relevance” to the future of the body politic that UKIP must occupy I have heard.
I heartily endorse your comment (If that counts for everything in this squabbling organization determinedly taken and kept “its mind off the ball)
Thanks Roger. UKIPs campaign for a EU referendum reached the point where tories feared losing their seats and power. So they conceded and granted the people a referendum. Just the threat of a UKIP electoral breakthrough was enough.
I am optimistic a good leader will emerge during UKIPs leadership process and take the fight to the unpatriotic mainstream parties
Absolutely CK, maybe its time to have a wager on the negotiations producing no agreement at the end of the 2 years.