More on this book
Kindle Notes & Highlights
Read between
January 26 - February 14, 2022
As is too often forgotten, the euro is also an instrument of emancipation, protecting us from American monetary hegemony.
But let’s not be naive: this negotiation cannot end up providing à la carte access to the internal market without any of the associated obligations, particularly in terms of the free movement of persons. On this we shall be vigilant!
In any case, Liam Fox’s statement only strengthens my determination: we must secure and consolidate the unity of the twenty-seven as rapidly as possible.
One of the reasons for the Leave vote was a rejection of the free movement of persons. But British politicians pretend they don’t know that it was the UK itself which, at the time of EU enlargement, chose not to activate the clause that would have allowed limits to be imposed upon the free movement of workers from the new member countries. Another reason, as correctly identified by Theresa May, was a yearning for protection: as she says, ‘the referendum was not just a vote to withdraw from the EU. […] It was about a sense – deep, profound and, let’s face it, often justified – that many people
...more
This distrust of the Commission extends to the details of our own organization: the Minister of Foreign Affairs Witold Waszczykowski protests that the team, which is still in the process of being set up, does not yet include any Poles. Even when I cite the name of one of the first officials to join our team, who is Polish, a close adviser to my deputy Sabine Weyland, the minister replies, ‘She’s an international civil servant, she’s not Polish. What we need is a less cosmopolitan approach to negotiation.’
On budgetary matters our position is clear. Thanks to Philippe Bertrand, the ‘mad scientist’ of the European budget, a photographer and aviator in his spare time, we have a method and, on the basis of the Union’s accounts, we know exactly what the British owe us. What was decided with twenty-eight members must be paid as if there were twenty-eight.
In fact, Mrs May is about to do nothing less than set out her red lines in their entirety, even though we have not yet opened negotiations.
Admittedly, a few phrases lead me to suspect that the British negotiators are going to ask for more than this, since there is explicit mention of taking in ‘elements of current single market arrangements in certain areas – on the export of cars and lorries for example, or the freedom to provide financial services across national borders’. But how could one possibly imagine that the EU would agree to such demands, clearly designed to benefit the City in return for concessions to German exporters?
To tell the truth, my immediate impression is of a strong and elegant woman, but with a certain rigidity in her physical and mental attitude.
To be honest, my sense is that the British are talking amongst themselves, as they did throughout the referendum campaign, and that they are underestimating the legal complexity of this divorce and of many of its consequences.
In relation to borders, it is stated that no free trade agreement can be equivalent to participation in the Single Market, or to parts of it, and that it must ‘ensure a level playing field, notably in terms of competition and state aid, and in this regard encompass safeguards against unfair competitive advantages through, inter alia, tax, social, environmental and regulatory measures and practices’.
On Twitter, I read that in Brussels there is rejoicing at Theresa May’s defeat, that I’m about to take a four-week holiday, and that I’m handing out champagne to my team. Frankly, I think I’ll keep the champagne on ice for now. In order to lead these negotiations and make them successful, we need a stable partner who knows what they want.
It has been a habit of the British, throughout the forty years that they have been members of the European Union, to use this method to fight, block and amend the proposals of the European Commission, which they consider to be the instrument of a federalism they detest. Since the beginning of the Brexit negotiations they have been doing it again, even though the Commission has no agenda apart from the interests of the twenty-seven and the integrity of the Union’s legal regime.
When he seeks to make sure that I have understood the reasons for the vote, I remind him that there are many reasons, in some cases contradictory ones, and that, in particular, false information has been propagated, such as the £350 million that he and his friends promised to get back from Brussels every week to reallocate to the health service. ‘Yes, that was a mistake’, he says. ‘I told Boris not to do it.’ How cynical can you get?
And again I wonder what has prevented the UK from being a ‘Global Britain’ up until now, if not its own lack of competitiveness. After all, Germany manages to be a ‘Global Germany’ while remaining solidly within the Union and within the Eurozone!
‘Before, they were in and they had many opt-outs; now they want to be out with many opt-ins.’
Step by step we are reaching agreement with the British on all issues. They often come around to our positions, which have been seriously prepared and are legally backed up. And that’s what counts.
Even if they do not really understand Europe, and sometimes harbour an animosity towards it inspired by their president, they all understand that the Union will not agree to unravel what it has built or to weaken what is its primary asset, the Single Market. All of them, more or less directly, let us know that they consider the UK to be acting against its own interests by leaving the Union.
The most caricatural figure in this exercise is the new Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who is making a tour of all the European capitals to blame the consequences of a possible no deal on the EU: ‘Help us, otherwise Brexit will be a tragedy’, he said in an interview in Paris on 31 July.
I’ve learned to keep my cool. What’s the point in arguing with Jeremy Hunt? I didn’t argue with Boris Johnson, when that would have been far easier and more fun!
Dominic Raab is decidedly not a man of great subtlety.
The same day, I have a telephone conversation with Martin Selmayr to discuss the substance of the negotiations and also questions of method. I know that he sees Olly Robbins directly and speaks to him, despite the formal request made by Jean-Claude Juncker in my presence in his office. Such discussions in themselves do not shock me, except when it is a question of his expressing directly to the British ideas that are his alone and that we have not discussed together. Since the beginning, the British have been playing both sides against each other and trying to open up a second line of
...more
Finally, the third landmark is the need to be united. If Donald Trump receives Jean-Claude Juncker in Washington to talk about trade, or if the Chinese respect the EU, it is first of all because we speak with a single voice, because we have a single policy when it comes to trade or competition rules, and a Single Market on the scale of an entire continent.
hadn’t quite understood the full extent of this, but if you look at the UK and look at how we trade in goods, we are particularly reliant on the Dover–Calais crossing.’
The Spanish have not forgotten or forgiven their humiliation in 1986, when they joined the EU and London demanded the consolidation of British sovereignty over and the granting of special status to Gibraltar. They simply want to reciprocate as the British leave, and understandably so.
On the sidelines of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s official visit to the UK, International Trade Secretary Liam Fox takes to Twitter to welcome the fact that ‘British farmers & food producers will be able to export beef & lamb to Japan for the 1st time in over 20yrs, opening access to one of the world’s fastest growing markets.’ Under the hashtag #FreeTradeUK, he adds: ‘Another example of the DIT’s banging the drum for top-quality British produce.’ The one thing he forgets to mention is that this is an agreement negotiated by the European Commission and concluded by the European Union!
...more
This position marks an important shift on the part of the British government, since it amounts to a direct calling into question of the outcome of two years of negotiations, without any detailed indications as to what they want instead. This is not acceptable.
Moreover, we are well aware that the British are not informing us, as they should, of the negotiations they have opened or even already concluded with Chile, Switzerland, the Faroe Islands, South Africa, Israel and Canada.
Mr Patten goes on to make a careful and unapologetic examination of five reasons why Europe has always been, for British leaders, the source of a continual ‘collective nervous breakdown’: the conviction, following the break-up of the British Empire, that Britain still has a global destiny; a sense of being ‘different and superior’, backed up by references to a largely idealized golden age; anxieties about any infringement of sovereignty and the ability to be ‘master of our fate, captain of our soul’; irritation at a Europe that appeals to reason rather than to the heart; and the certainty
...more
We must remain rigorous on this point: the health of European consumers is at stake.
A bit hyperbolic
This is in line with the ideas of certain Brexiteers who would like to turn the UK into a kind of Singapore on our doorstep, and practise fiscal and social dumping against us as soon as possible. In this context we must remain vigilant, and continue to prepare ourselves for the no-deal scenario, which will never be the choice of the European Union but which we cannot rule out.
Interesting. Here he is really shaken.
The debate under way in the UK involves a conflict between economic realism and political ideology. And as Wolfgang Münchau rightly says, ‘[s]uccess or failure will depend on what the UK does with its new freedom’.
‘Man kann nicht auf zwei Hochzeiten gleichzeitig tanzen’:
On one point we all agree: the British have opted against working towards a rational and constructive agreement.
the UK buys more than 604 products exclusively from the EU, while the EU buys only one exclusively from the UK: a specific type of timber.*
It seems that David Frost underestimated the dynamics of the European Council, and misled his Prime Minister by telling him that the heads of state would be more flexible than the task force. So now, in order to save face, he is creating a drama.
A lot of wasted time and controversy only to end up simply honouring their own signature and applying what had already been decided upon and ratified.
