The EU negotiator for the future relationship with the United Kingdom, Michel Barnier, gave an interview on Wednesday 13 January to several European media, including EUROPE. Mr Barnier—who will remain at the Commission for a few more weeks and who then intends to return to play a political role in France—has returned to speak about the negotiations concluded at the end of December and the consequences of Brexit, which only create a “lose-lose situation”. (Interview by Solenn Paulic)
Agence Europe – The media have been reporting on the difficulties encountered by British companies since 1 January. Are these frictions doomed to remain or can they be resolved through dialogue with the United Kingdom?
Michel Barnier – There are two things. One is adaptation to a new situation: for people, for companies, there are customs forms to fill in, many new procedures, which explains certain problems. There is a situation that requires adaptation for the administrations, as well, and we can expect this to be resolved in a few days or a few weeks.
Then, there is something definitive associated with Brexit, and this cannot come as a surprise: food products, whatever they may be—live animals, all plant products—have to be checked now and on both sides.
This is something that has changed for good. This is a consequence of Brexit that will not go away in the coming weeks or months. It is a mechanical consequence of Brexit rather than a short-term problem. The rules are different, and they have to be applied on the British side, too, including on sandwiches going to the EU.
It is the choice to leave the internal market that brings these consequences.
I don’t want to judge how people have been informed about Brexit, but some effects have been underestimated. I was very clear as early as December 2016. Very early on, I warned of the social, human and financial consequences of Brexit. Many of these effects have been dealt with in the agreement, but many are related to the fact that Brexit means Brexit and that the United Kingdom left the internal market.
The agreement provides for mechanisms to protect each other against excessive regulatory divergence. Can we already predict which route the UK will take?
When we talk about Brexit, we are talking about a process of divergence. The United Kingdom has always referred to the need to respect its national sovereignty. I was quite surprised by this repetition, because British sovereignty has never been a problem for us. We have always respected it, and we have asked the United Kingdom to respect our sovereignty and that of the 27 EU Member States.
There has been this constant reference to sovereignty on the British side. Behind this desire lies the wish and the right to be autonomous. We do not disagree with this, but the question is what to do with this regulatory autonomy.
If a good is supplied without quotas, without tariffs to the EU, then we are entitled to ask this question of a level playing field.
I don’t know, honestly, how they will use this regulatory divergence, but we have to be careful. I can already see the ongoing debate in the United Kingdom on pesticides. But there are consequences: if there are legislative changes with an impact on competitiveness on our side, then there are measures in the agreement to deal with them.
Any effect on competition will be examined because all products that are free of quotas and tariffs must comply with our rules, and we will continue to protect our consumers.
We will be vigilant on all fronts, all norms, all standards. We know that there will be divergences. It’s logical, it’s normal: they are sovereign.
But what do we do? For pesticides, water quality, depending on the thresholds we set, this can have an impact on farmers. This is also true for financial services, the Basel rules, the rules for banks.
Everything will have to be carefully observed, and the Commission will set up in the coming weeks an organisation by department to monitor the implementation of all these agreements. And I am sure the UK will do the same.
In the medium and long term, we will have to find a way to behave between partners that is intelligent and fair. We are not afraid of competition, we just want it to be free and fair.
The EU has shown great unity during the negotiations. Will this lead to ‘more Europe’?
I know the hope that things will improve and become easier without the United Kingdom, for example, for defence and even the budget.
But my conviction is that Brexit fundamentally weakens us. It is not just a divorce, it is in fact a weakening. It is always better to be together, but there is no point looking back to see how things would have been with the British still within the EU.
The future of the EU is far more important than Brexit.
As far as financial services are concerned, don’t you see the risk that the UK will ask for a renegotiation, because it will find out that the agreement does not favour this sector?
The United Kingdom has had every opportunity to express its red lines, its blue lines; it has been able to say what it wanted in all forums and has always talked about a free trade agreement.
On financial services, I know how important the City is. In this respect, as far as access to the internal market is concerned, there has never been any question of renegotiation. There are independent aspects for equivalences, there are separate processes and a unilateral aspect on this point.
I am not saying that we will not grant equivalences—there are already equivalences for clearing houses—but we will do so according to our interests and the major needs identified.
The heart of the matter is the stability of the euro area one and the internal market: we had a lot of difficulties after 2008-2009, during the financial crisis, to rebuild this stability, we are not going to question it. The granting of equivalences will be unilateral and will be an autonomous decision of the EU.
We can re-evaluate the agreement, but regardless of this 4-year process (a clause to review the agreement every 4 years), there will be no new negotiations for financial services. We will have a Memorandum of Understanding, and there will be no negotiations on financial services.
Have you never doubted the unity of the EU27 throughout these negotiations, and was there a time when you really doubted that an agreement could be reached?
We have established a method of transparency, of respecting the concerns and sensitivities of the Member States on road transport, on aviation, on fisheries, on Gibraltar, and I have never had any real doubts about the unity of the EU27, because there was this trust established.
It was clear during the negotiations that the British were trying to dance at two weddings, but they never succeeded in breaking the unity or endangering the internal market.
But there have been two difficult moments. In 2018, when the British Parliament was unable to approve the agreement negotiated with the EU by Theresa May. And more recently, last November, when the President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and Boris Johnson said that the conditions for an agreement were not in place, there was a real danger.
For me, the most difficult moment was the Internal Market Bill, with its intention to violate the withdrawal agreement and contravene the provisions of the Northern Ireland Protocol.
But this has further strengthened the unity of the EU27.
What should have been improved in this negotiation and what can still be improved?
I regret that there is no cooperation on foreign policy, on geopolitical challenges. I hope that new negotiations will open up a new field, because important pieces are missing.
I also hope that we can find a way for the United Kingdom to return to Erasmus+.