The European Commission and the Twenty-seven warned the UK Government and Parliament on Wednesday 13 March that the solution for an orderly exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union resided "in London".
Such a solution is now in the "hands of the British political system", said EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier and First Vice-President of the Commission Frans Timmermans, as well as a number of European leaders.
Mr Barnier and Mr Timmermans spoke at a plenary debate in the European Parliament on the European Summit on 21 and 22 March, the day after the House of Commons rejected for the second time the agreement on an orderly Brexit negotiated by the British Prime Minister, Mrs May, with the EU (see EUROPE 12212/1).
British MPs clearly rejected the negotiation again on Tuesday evening, by 391 votes to 242, although more Tory MPs supported Mrs May, who had suffered a heavier defeat in January (see EUROPE 12172/1). However, with a deficit of 149 to her disadvantage, Mrs May was unable to limit the breakage, as observers of British political life considered before the vote that she could have claimed a partial victory with a deficit of 70 votes.
After this rejection, British MPs were therefore to vote again on Wednesday evening, 13 March, on the option of the United Kingdom leaving the EU without an agreement by 29 March, a scenario that Mrs May does not favour and that she will ask them to explicitly reject (see other news).
According to British media, the House of Commons was quite likely to reject this no deal scenario and, therefore, move on Thursday 14 March, to a third and final vote on an extension of Article 50. But British sources, quoted by several media outlets, also questioned the possibility that the British Parliament could also reject a request for an extension, thus leading to a technical Brexit without agreement on 29 March.
"Why an extension?"
This scenario of leaving the EU without an agreement in just 16 days has, in any case, become more concrete than ever, as Michel Barnier said on Tuesday evening. Speaking to MEPs on Wednesday morning, he first regretted that some members of the British Parliament had "trivialised" the new guarantees given to the Irish backstop on 11 March, which were "however significant" and solemnly called on "all actors to prepare" for such a scenario. "There will be no further assurances or interpretations, we cannot go any further", the Frenchman repeated. "The United Kingdom must say what it wants." He was joined in this sense by a large number of MEPs who also took a position on the extension of Article 50.
For Mr Barnier, the first question to ask is "why an extension?" when the draft agreement is available and on the table and "it is finished". EPP parliamentary President Manfred Weber said in this debate that he would not even accept a "24-hour extension" without a reasoned request from the United Kingdom, thus echoing the concern raised by EU leaders in recent weeks. For the Twenty-seven, an extension only makes sense if it is short and technical in nature to allow the draft agreement to pass through or longer if it is an opportunity for the United Kingdom to change the path taken so far, to re-consult the people or to hold new parliamentary elections. Without a reasoned request, this extension would be "unacceptable", said French President Emmanuel Macron.
But the question of the European elections will also come up. On Monday evening, in his letter to the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, the President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, made it clear that the United Kingdom should not participate in the elections at the end of May. "Do you want Nigel Farage [the europhobic MEP for UKIP] to have a new term of office?" asked his colleagues Guy Verhofstadt, pointing out the grotesque nature that such an extension of Article 50 could take. However, many believe that the integrity of the European Parliament would remain intact until its constitution at the session on 2 July, thus allowing for an extension of a few months without the country having to take part in the elections. Chancellor Angela Merkel has already stated that an extension until the end of June would be feasible.
Customs duties in case of ‘no deal’
On 13 March, the British government published the customs duties it would apply to European products if they left the EU without agreement. In this scenario, and for one year from 29 March at 11:00 p.m., British companies would not pay duties on 87% of imports of goods in value coming from Ireland.
Only 13% of these imports would be subject to duties or tariff quotas. This would be the case, inter alia, for certain agri-food and fisheries products, finished vehicles, bananas and raw cane sugar.
This initiative aims to minimise the impact of a no deal on UK consumers and producers. Indeed, in the event of a "no deal", London would be obliged to apply to Ireland and all products originating in the EU, which previously entered duty-free, the same tariffs as those it applies to its World Trade Organisation (WTO) partners with whom it does not have a specific trade agreement.
However, this British plan would violate WTO rules in that it runs counter to the principle that all members of the multilateral organisation should be treated in the same way (most-favoured-nation clause).
Margaritis Schinas, the Commission's spokesperson, said the institution "would carefully analyse" these plans, in particular their compatibility with WTO rules "and the EU's rights arising from them". He suggested that the reciprocal would not apply to British products, which would be subject to customs duties upon arrival in Ireland, in line with EU tariffs at the WTO. "This is essential if the EU is to remain a reliable trading partner, in particular by respecting internationally recognised rules", he concluded. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic with Hermine Donceel)