Barnier responded to the appearance of Frost and Gove at the Future relationship committee on Wednesday when our chief negotiator made the suggestion that the EU's mandate needed to 'evolve'. Speaking to a German radio station yesterday morning he said "more realism" is needed in London if we want an orderly withdrawal. My only quibble is the use of the word "more". Some realism, just a tiny amount would be welcome.
Frost on Wednesday was literally telling 27 sovereign nations that they must change in order to accommodate our demands. He is a dangerous choice of negotiator, succeeding only in hardening attitudes in Brussels towards the UK. Barnier told listeners:
“The British have not understood, or they do not want to understand, that Brexit has consequences for them,”
Politico described it as a "punchy reaction" to recent public statements by his British counterpart David Frost and it was. The message is not a new one but it seems the government is deaf to it, preferring instead to rely on the hubris and delusion that worked so well in 2016. Frost and Gove seem to think we are going to have more success in influencing the EU from the sidelines than we did on the pitch as a full member. It is madness.
Barnier went on to say:
“I would remind you that the United Kingdom is leaving the internal market and the customs union … it’s not us leaving the United Kingdom. A third country, the United Kingdom, will not dictate the conditions of access to our market for British goods, services, data or for workers and businesses … We remain sovereign. This is my mandate.
“What astonishes me a lot about the British position is that Prime Minister Johnson himself acknowledged [the need for rules of fair competition] in the Political Declaration [on the future relationship] he signed. We negotiated this with him and with David Frost in October, step by step, line by line and comma by comma.”
British backsliding on prior commitments on this and on the Irish protocol has not gone unnoticed in the EU.
And in what can only be described as an absolutely breathtaking statement, Gove told Reuters that European companies would be the losers if the European Union "tried to impose barriers" on London's financial industry. This is literally the man who spent six months in 2016 going around the country demanding barriers be imposed. I assume he thought they would be one way barriers?
This is one of the "consequences" that we have not yet understood after four long years.
Cummings' strategy of setting political deadlines and sticking rigidly to them worked against us last year and resulted in a disastrous withdrawal agreement, splitting the UK into two separate customs regimes that will - sooner or later - split the nation. We clearly regret it now as you can see with the increasingly desperate attempts to play down or circumvent what we committed to in October.
The EU logic is that we have not left enough time, even with a 21 month transition period to negotiate tariffs on thousands and thousands of different commodities. This takes years and years with different sectors of the economy being consulted as tariffs are reduced, increased or imposed as each side seeks to gain an advantage or minimise damage. Hence, a zero tariff, zero quota deal is the only option left in the time limit we have set. It was our choice.
This would also suit the EU who export far more to us that we do to them.
But it would be considerably more than the EU negotiated with Korea, Canada, Japan or Mexico who are all no doubt watching with interest. If Britain gets a zero tariff, zero quota deal with no more obligations than these countries accepted there will be pressure to grant them the same rights. So, the EU cannot afford to demand less and the level playing field, single governance conditions set in Barnier's mandate, that we find so irksome, will not be changed. It is simply not possible.
The Brexiteers have tied themselves in a knot. All the bright promises made on the 2016 campaign trail have proved empty. I cannot remember the last time anyone at the forefront of Brexit spelled out a benefit, it is now something that has to be endured because... well, because it has to.
The Immigration Bill is hailed as something to be proud of by Priti Patel but is in fact the removal of the right to live and work in 27 European countries, it is not a benefit at all. And overall immigration has not fallen anyway, immigrants are simply coming from elsewhere.
The next few weeks will be seminal. The EU will not bend, at least not as far as Cummings (for he is the government) is demanding. In fact they will make very few concessions, because they don't need to or they can't anyway.
To add to the EU's resolve the Chair of the European Parliament’s United Kingdom Coordination Group, David McAllister, issued a statement backing Barnier to the hilt. McAllister is actually German but with a Scottish name.
Amazingly this week, Frost told Benn's select committee the negotiations were still "at an early stage" with a decision needed in the next thirty days about whether the two sides think sufficient progress has been made. The final negotiating round before a decision is needed starts next Tuesday when Barnier and Frost will meet each other for the first time after the recent combative exchanges. The moment of truth approaches.
The UK will either have to accept the EU deal or leave without one. This week the British International Freight Association (BIFA) warned that we are "hopelessly ill prepared" to operate a functioning border at the end of the year. They, like the Road Haulage Association, a few weeks ago, demanded the transition period be extended.
The border will need to be operational whatever happens, with or without a deal. Even the idea of calling the last few months a "transition" period will ring hollow. Unless we extend, we are going over a cliff, there will be no transition.
