Barnier has formally responded to the government's white paper (HERE) by praising some parts and raising questions about other, more fundamental things but in a measured way. For this he has been accused of "bullying" by Jacob Rees-Mogg (a bit rich this) who says it shows why we must leave. Barnier's speech was published in French but with the help of Google translate I've managed to put key parts into English.
This is what he said:
Regarding our future economic partnership, the White Paper raises three sets of questions to which we expect answers:
1 / First, are the proposals of the White Paper compatible with the principles laid down by the 27 Heads of State and Government at the beginning of this negotiation, principles recalled by the Foreign Ministers today, among which : The integrity of the internal market and the customs union and of our common commercial policy; The indivisibility of the four freedoms; The autonomy of decision of the European Union.
These are the principles that are in my mandate and that I will respect scrupulously throughout this negotiation. In any case, our responsibility is to protect the internal market of the European Union, which we are, especially in the current period.
For example, the UK is willing to align with EU standards for goods - but only for controlled standards at the border. The United Kingdom would therefore not align with our agri-food rules on, for example, GMOs or pesticides, since compliance with these rules is not monitored at the border.
This has been confirmed to us this week in the negotiation. But how can we protect European consumers? On what basis could we accept the free movement of these goods?
2 / Second question: are these proposals of the White Paper operational, " workable "? Are they applicable without additional complexity or additional bureaucracy?
This question arises for the regulatory alignment on goods, but even more so for the " facilitated customs arrangement " proposed by the United Kingdom.
This proposal would be to apply two tariffs - the United Kingdom or the Union - to goods entering the United Kingdom, depending on whether the goods are destined for the United Kingdom market or the European market.
This poses many practical questions. For example : How could the customs services verify the final destination of goods, and thus ensure that the correct customs tariff is applied to them? Is there not a major risk of fraud? What are the additional financial and administrative costs for companies and customs services that have to comply with this new system? I just want to say that Brexit can not be, and will not be, a justification for creating additional bureaucracy. What would be the impact of lower UK Union tariffs on revenues, both for the EU budget and for the Member States?
This complex customs system would also pose a more fundamental question: How could the Union delegate the application of its customs rules to a non-EU country, which will no longer be subject to our governance framework? Would that be acceptable, or just legally possible?
3 / Third question: are the UK proposals in the economic interest of the European Union?
And it is also in my mandate to protect the interests of the European Union. Two observations:
By definition, the common rulebook for goods does not relate to services, on which the United Kingdom wants to be free to diverge. When we know that 20 to 40% of the value of the products we use every day is related to services, how can we avoid the unfair competition that could be exerted on European companies?
How can it be avoided that an independent British commercial policy, while retaining all the benefits of our customs union, offers British companies major competitive advantages to the detriment of EU companies?
None of this sounds like bullying to me. It is simply pointing out once again the core principles, not only of the EU itself but also those set out in Theresa May's own Article 50 letter of March 29th last year. He is simply reminding us that the four freedoms are indivisible and there can be no cherry picking.
So, reading between the lines. The answers to his three questions are (to use the famous words of Margaret Thatcher in reply to Jacque Delors) no, no and no - in that order.
I thought the French European affairs minister, Nathalie Loiseau, arriving in Brussels and showing how Foreign Ministers should behave, said political chaos in the UK was making the Brexit negotiations more complicated.
She apparently told reporters in Brussels: "We will work on the basis of our principles and see to what extent our British partner fully gets it, including the British parliament."
