Andrew Duff, Lib Dem MEP from 1999 to 2014 and current chairman of the ‘Spinelli Group’, is known for his commitment to European federalism, but is also a British citizen for whom 31 January is a “a sad day” for both the EU and the UK. He tells EUROPE how he’s experiencing Brexit and looks ahead to what happens next. (Interview by Solenn Paulic)
Agence Europe: What are your feelings about 31 January?
Andrew Duff: I feel very sad of course. It is “a sad day”, but the process of getting here has been very problematic, so in a lot of ways it’s also a relief that we are here and we can now begin an important and constructive negotiation on the future relationship. But we must realise that it won’t be the same as membership.
I think that in the United Kingdom the seriousness of Brexit is now understood; there is a sense of triumphalism in a minority of extreme nationalists, but apart from these, everyone is “sober”. Everyone has appreciated the gravity and the historic nature of the rupture we just had with Europe. And I will stay in Europe to try to soften the blow of Brexit, but also to exploit the fact that Britain has left to encourage the Twenty-Seven to complete their historic mission of integration and achieve a federal union.
Are you still convinced that the federal way is the right path to follow after Brexit?
It’s perverse, because the British were always a break in integration. But the paradox is that if the aspirations of the founding fathers had been accomplished, the EU would have been a very much more attractive project for the UK. The British joined because their imperial phase was over; they were looking to find an alternative source of power in the world. If the EU had been more powerful, Britain would have felt at home.
We have these interminable quarrels over institutions and treaties, these obscure rules and regulations and the arguments between the 27 states, even now questioning the fundamentals of the rule of law. We have the annual quarrels over fish or the budget.
This isn’t an enterprise that is working well and the establishment of a discernible stable federal government is needed. If the EU draws the right conclusions from Brexit, which it has not yet done, it will learn that it is not sufficient to leave the building of the EU incomplete. The federal idea comes very close to the core of the British historic political experience.
It is not true that the British elite cannot grasp this. They understand the federal nature of the EU. They are turning away now, but leaders like Ted Heath and Roy Jenkins, who brought us into the European Union, were federalists. Arthur Caufield, the commissioner who created the Delors single market, was a federalist. If the EU had been more successful and more powerful, more confident, if it had grasped the concept of sovereignty earlier, of European sovereignty, then the British would still be in the EU.
On the future relationship, do you expect the negotiations to be tough?
The hard thing will be to get a free trade agreement in time. That’ll be difficult, but I think it can be done. The trade agreement, trade in goods, can be done. We all know what to do. We know that the non-regression clauses are there to ensure that the level playing field isn’t disrupted. And we need five signed agreements on security issues or Horizon 2020. An element of the partnership between Britain and the EU is research, and it’s in the interests of both the EU and the UK that this continues afterwards.
There has to be an agreement in the course of this year, because the multiannual financial framework will be in place at the beginning of next year. As ideology is replaced by pragmatism in the UK, the trust between us will begin to grow back after the very bruising experience of Brexit. And I am optimistic that at the end of the day we will have an association agreement.
You’re not worried that Britain will try to diverge greatly from the EU? Will the UK have to make a choice between the EU and Donald Trump?
Of course I’m worried, but I think that in quite a lot of ways Britain could become more competitive, which would be a good thing for the EU. It will have to become competitive to compete with the United Kingdom. And in terms of security and defence policy, France perfectly well understands that its closest partner is the United Kingdom and will always remain so.
In this negotiation, we can form a constructive, comprehensive and durable partnership. The idea that the British will agree to an entirely American standard is nonsense. I think that the EU, partly because of the British contribution to it, is the imperial standard set up. It establishes the norms for the rest of the world. Look at the GDPR [General Data Protection Regulation].
How should the EU approach these negotiations with London?
If the Commission can’t adapt to the challenge of the UK as a third country - and I think Michel Barnier is clever enough to understand this - if the negotiations are a repeat of Article 50, it will not work. The Commission and the [EU] Council have to upgrade their appreciation of the facts on the ground. The political reality is different now.
Can we expect a bright future for both the EU and the UK, even if they are separate? Especially from an economic point of view?
It'll be different. This is a historic day. Things will change forever, but there’s always a future. That depends on the industry, on world trade conditions. These aren’t all in our grasp, but with competitive trade and a close trading partnership in terms of goods and services, a strong scientific network and a common approach to global values - if we can achieve that, then it will not be a disaster.