I worked for a French company for about 12 years from 1993. The French were masters of flowery language that said very little, but at length. Now we seem to have adopted their practice. The UK technical papers published last week look as if they were written by a salesman with a weak case who thinks verbiage is a substitute for rational argument. Yesterday, Barnier, speaking in Lisbon gave us a masterclass in clear, cogent and logical thinking even including examples. The speech in French is (HERE) but I used Google translate to get an English version (HERE). Politico's take on it is HERE.
His patience is obviously running out. He once again asks for clarity and says, "Because to negotiate effectively, you must know what the other party wants. A negotiation can not be a part of hide and seek". And yet this is what we have been playing since April last year.
The EU are clearly in no mood to compromise on governance of the WA (Withdrawal Agreement) and will insist the ECJ is used as the final arbiter. He explains their position thus:
According to the British position, any disagreement between the EU and the UK over the interpretation or application of the withdrawal agreement should be decided by this joint committee.
In my view, this would be tantamount to replacing the jurisdictional review of the rules of law with a simple political settlement, which is unacceptable. By creating or joining the European Union, member states have agreed to pool certain aspects of their sovereignty to create a body of law applicable to themselves and their nationals. It is this community of law based on mutual trust that the UK is about to leave.
And the agreement we are negotiating aims to organize this withdrawal in an orderly manner, which involves "unravelling" relationships established for decades between member states, but also between private actors. Therefore, in contrast to a conventional international agreement, the withdrawal agreement will not be limited to creating rights and obligations between two Sovereign Parties. It will create rights directly invokable by litigants.
He also draws attention to the cherry-picking we are attempting. And as an example, he points to the recent GDPR (General Data Protection Regulations) that we have all noted recently:
The United Kingdom wants its supervisor to remain on the European Data Protection Council set up by the GDPR. He would like to stay in the one-stop system. He believes that all this is in the interest of EU companies. But let's be clear: Brexit is not and will never be in the interest of EU companies. And above all it would be contrary to the interests of our companies to give up our autonomy of decision. This autonomy allows us to set standards for the whole of the EU but also often to see these standards taken over the world.
It is the normative power of the Union or what is often called " the Brussels effect ". And we can not, we will not be able to share this decisional autonomy with a third country, undoubtedly a former Member State but which no longer wants to be in the same legal ecosystem as us.
This is not an isolated example, since we are also arguing to remain influential in 40 crime fighting measures, but it demonstrates the British civil service at least recognises where our interests are. If we are not allowed to participate in many EU bodies (as will certainly be the case), we will be forced to follow the rules in any case but we will have zero influence. So much for "taking back control".
As Barnier himself says elsewhere in the speech:
the best way to influence the decisions of the European Union is to be in the European Union. The United Kingdom wants to leave. It's his decision. Not ours. And that has consequences.
We have yet to come to terms with those consequences, but the day when we will have to is coming up very fast. The inescapable truth is that the EU is much bigger, more influential, has better regulations, more of them and it is not going to disappear. We will be in the huge gravitational pull of the EU whatever happens.
