On Thursday 31 August, the respective EU and British negotiators involved in the talks on the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU, Michel Barnier and David Davis, continued to dig their heels in on the initial positions they had taken and displayed fundamental differences with regard to the way in which the main negotiating subjects, such as the financial question, can be resolved.
Michel Barnier said that although there had been some progress made during this third round of negotiations, particularly on the question of Ireland, negotiations over the past few days had not produced any “decisive progress”. He even warned that, “going at this current pace, we are a long way from make any sufficient progress whereby we can recommend that the European Council begins discussions on the future relationship”.
The EU negotiator also observed some backtracking by the British government with regard to the financial question, which has definitely become a way in which this government is exerting pressure. Mr Barnier explained that although during the July round the British government had acknowledged that the United Kingdom had financial obligations that would go beyond Brexit, the British government now appeared to be going backwards and had indicated to the Europeans over the past few days that its obligations would stop with the final payment to the European budget as a member state.
Mr Barnier deplored the fact that, “after this week, it is clear that the United Kingdom does not feel legally obliged to honour its financial obligations” after it has left the EU. The British negotiator, however, denied that it was being a bad partner in these negotiations and defended the work achieved by his government. David Davis made numerous calls on the EU to show flexibility and imagination towards the possible solutions and explained that this involved, above all, an obligation to British taxpayers to analyse every single point in the financial calculation that the European Commission had presented them with.
One European source explained later in the day that the British were simply putting forward a default financial scenario in the hope of the Commission changing its line and agreeing to discussing the question of future relations and the transition period with London. This same source explained that even in this “co-operatives scenario”, the United Kingdom has still not explained what its financial commitments are. It did, however, explain that the British were very seriously engaged in the discussions on this financial issue.
It should be pointed out that the EU had informed London at the outset of the negotiations that the methodology it intended to apply for calculating the financial obligation took into account the commitments to participating in a variety of programmes, such as those for Ukraine, for example.
David Davis said that the British position on this financial subject is solid but should be resolved in compliance with the law and in the context of the future partnership between the EU and United Kingdom. He also confirmed that London would show greater openness to the European positions if the EU displayed greater flexibility in its views on the sequencing of the talks.
Dismissing claims that he is said to be “frustrated or angry”, Michel Barnier asserted that he was, above all, “impatient” for these negotiations to make significant progress. He was, however, keen to point out to his counterpart that this exclusively involved the strict mandate conferred by the EU 27 and that, “it is this mandate that I will scrupulously implement. This decides the sequencing and it is clear and precise” and also puts things “in the right order”. Mr Barnier also said that it sets out the conditions for the transition period, if the United Kingdom wanted. He added that, “Those who are seeking to identify the slightest differences between what this negotiating team is doing and that sought by the EU 27, are wasting their time”.
Mr Barnier also warned London that with regard to the disputed points, he was unable to request a transition period and access to the customs union or single market without an agreement to the EU’s legal order, namely the bodies that apply European law.
This negotiating round did, however, see some progress being made and has even “begun to bear fruit” claimed David Davis, referring to the discussions on citizens’ rights, cross-border questions, the pensions issue and vocational qualifications, areas in which the Commission acknowledged that clarifications have been provided.
On Thursday, the Commission also appeared satisfied on the question of Ireland and the progress made in this third round. One source said, “We have begun to talk of the common travel area and are making good progress”. There will be no border controls that have a negative impact on European citizens but there will be internal controls. The Commission also welcomed the fact that the United Kingdom had acknowledged that on the question of Ireland things were complicated and that other aspects needed to be considered, such as environmental issues. The next round of negotiations will take place on 18 September.
European Parliament criticism
Gianni Pittella, the leader of the S&D Group at the European Parliament stated in a press release that, “the lack of decisive progress on one of the main subjects in the third round of negotiations comes as no surprise. Beyond the good will expressed on paper, the government of United Kingdom is far from being open or wishing to have a serious discussion about the crucial points relating to the United Kingdom leaving the EU: citizens’ rights, resolving the financial question and the Irish border”.
“How can we begin discussions on our future relationships if the United Kingdom still has misgivings about beginning dialogue on its financial commitments? The Conservatives are entirely responsible for the current impasse, which runs the risk of having a serious impact on citizens and business”.
Manfred Weber, the leader of the EPP in Parliament, argued that the negotiations were stalling because of the British government, which continued to avoid “the really important questions. This is frustrating”. He added that discussing the future partnership was inconceivable “without any serious results in the negotiations on the divorce”. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)