The Exiting the EU Select Committee went to Brussels on Monday 3rd September and met Michel Barnier and Sabine Weyand. The transcript of the talks can be found HERE. If I was Barnier or Weyand I would be shaking my head at the abysmal level of understanding by the people who are supposed to be overseeing the process. And this after two years of intense effort. The MPs on the committee have had access to detailed analysis, often delivered in person by world leading experts. It's hard to imagine anyone in this country who has access to better information on Brexit than these fourteen members of the Select Committee. But they seem totally incapable of understanding the issues.
Bearing this in mind, have a look at the exchange between Andrea Jenkyns and Sabine Weyand on page 13 - Question 2546. Jenkyns thought she was being a bit clever. Probably someone put her up to it and primed her with a question designed to demolish the EU's position on the Irish border. It was a spectacular failure and exploded in Jenkyns' face. Here's how it went:
AJ: Would this be an area that you could look at [some WTO rules] in the European Union, to look at the WTO exceptions to most favoured nations provisions because this could be a way of helping to solve the Northern Irish border?
SW: (After Barnier had answered in general) You referred to the exemption from MFN provisions in the WTO. Now this refers to tariff issues. Indeed you can create an economic zone 20 km around the border or wherever, but that does not address the issue we face on the island of Ireland.
Here we are talking very practically about—imagine—an import of shrimps from an Asian country where they treat shrimps with antibiotics, which are prohibited in the EU because they can lead to blindness. Now this shipment arrives in Liverpool and is destined for the market in Northern Ireland and also the EU27. At what moment and how do we check that there are no residues of prohibited antibiotics? A 20 km zone does not address this issue. That is one example.
Ms Weyand goes on to give other examples firstly about importing cheap bikes from countries against which the EU have anti-dumping measures and then on VAT evasion and says, "It is on these very precise and concrete issues that we need to find a solution". She was too polite to finish with "you idiot". Jenkyns cannot even manage to find a reasonable question on the issue! She won Ed Balls' old seat of Morley and Outwood, is a confirmed Brexiteer and total airhead.
As I said, this is an MP, sitting on the Exiting the EU Select Committee, over two years after the referendum and seventeen months after Article 50 was triggered - and she still doesn't understand the Irish border problem. What chance do we stand?
As I said, this is an MP, sitting on the Exiting the EU Select Committee, over two years after the referendum and seventeen months after Article 50 was triggered - and she still doesn't understand the Irish border problem. What chance do we stand?
She isn't the only one. It's as if the EU's chief negotiator and his deputy are having to gently explain again and again that (to use Sir Ivan Roger's phrase) Brexit means: Brexit.
Rees-Mogg later asks about the £40 billion (Q2554) and says:
"Looking at your proposal for a free trade agreement—which I think is a very good one—doesn’t it seem rather expensive at £40 billion to get something that can be got for free?"
Barnier is having none of it though:
"That figure is settlement for the past. You want to leave the European Union. That is your decision, so we settle the accounts. As in any separation or divorce, we settle the accounts. That is what it is. The future is a different matter".
Rees-Mogg responds that the House of Lords has concluded there is no legal basis to pay the £40 billion and that without an FTA it might not get parliamentary approval, but Barnier is clear on that one too:
"If the United Kingdom, through its Prime Minister, has agreed to honour its commitments, that means that Theresa May’s Government wants to assume their responsibilities when it comes to participation in international commitments and commitments vis-à-vis the European Union. It is a very big responsibility. It is an important point for your country and other countries as well, my own country. It is important to have a firm signature from the UK as with that of other EU member states. We may work on a possible link. I don’t know what legal form that will take but there may well be a link. Obviously we will have to look at the legal form of that link. There might be a link between the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration".
In other words, if the UK wants to be taken seriously we will have to pay the £40 billion, come what may. He says it may be possible to link the WA with the political declaration - which JRM took to mean to the money, but I think the position is clear. It is as Sir Ivan Rogers says. If we don't pay, the EU will end the negotiations and we'll be back at the table next week with a cheque book.
The Daily Express see it as the first "major concession" (HERE) saying Barnier "CRUMBLED" and describing it as a "major victory for Mr Raab and the UK". More wishful thinking to add to the pile.
