For 1,600 days, Michel Barnier (La Tronche, 70 years old) was in charge of sitting at the table with the United Kingdom to defend the interests of the European Union in the Brexit negotiations. There were critical moments, in which the conversations seemed doomed to failure, as he recounts in his book The great illusion. Brexit Secret Diary (2016-2020). Months later, he still does not see “the added value” of Brexit and believes that “ideology or rhetoric have triumphed over pragmatism.” In a hotel in Madrid, where Barnier receives MRT before giving a conference, he warns Brussels that it must “listen and respond” to social discontent in some areas or “there will be other Brexits.” The former minister and former European commissioner also addresses his return to French politics with the intention of being appointed candidate of the Republicans, of the center-right, to be the next president of the republic.
Question. When you see queues at petrol stations and empty shelves in the UK, what comes to mind?
Answer. I have just been in London and the situation is very complicated. It is not only because of Brexit, it is also because of the increase in the price of oil, the covid, the crisis of raw materials. But it is also Brexit. I reaffirm that the UK’s exit from the EU has no added value. I still do not understand the economic interest of the United Kingdom in leaving the single market, which was so important to them. Which was the reason for their accession in 1973. I regret this situation, but it is the democratic and sovereign choice of the majority of British people.
P. Has there been unpredictability on the British side after four years of negotiations?
R. At my first press conference in Brussels in 2016, I said that the consequences of Brexit are innumerable: social, economic, technical, financial, political, legal and human. And that we had to prepare. For four years, on the European side, we have produced a hundred documents to inform companies. I have met in each country with the unions and the employers, so that everyone was prepared. I don’t think the British side has worked in the same way. There was the idea that Brexit was the important thing and it had to be executed. And that the consequences were less important.
P. In addition to what we have seen these weeks, what other consequences await the UK?
R. Many tariff barriers, because we have to control the products that enter the single market. Verify sanitary and food safety; possibly fees, if it is products coming through the UK from China. British financial services have lost the European passport. There is no longer automatic mutual recognition of professions and professional qualifications. The British could have left the EU while remaining in the single market, like Norway. We were open. They could also have stayed in the customs union, but this has been their choice. I have the feeling that ideology or rhetoric has triumphed over pragmatism.
P. In the new relationship between the EU and London, what are the most difficult aspects?
R. One of the issues that most concerned me during the negotiation was preserving cooperation in the medium and long term. We have many challenges before us: other pandemics, sadly; The terrorism; poverty in Africa and the great migrations that it will cause; climate change, etc. All of this requires cooperation between the UK and the EU. To cooperate we need a legal framework. But once you have that legal framework, you also need trust. And that’s the problem today. There are doubts about the confidence we can have in the British because they do not respect what is signed in fisheries matters and in the Irish Protocol, and they want to backtrack. That’s serious. And it saps confidence.
P. During the negotiations, did you trust the British counterpart?
R. I had a moment of great doubts. When they wanted to challenge the protocol on Northern Ireland with a unilateral rule called the internal market law. Many emotions were generated, many doubts, and I, at that moment, lost confidence.
P. The UK threatens an un-agreed solution for Gibraltar after rejecting the Commission’s mandate to negotiate. Do you think they are serious?
R. You have to be careful because London seems to want to use methods that are not even diplomatic, and they are not always the correct ones. It will be necessary for the other 26 Member States to show solidarity with Spain. I hope that a constructive debate can be started within the framework of the mandate and in agreement with the Spanish Government.
P. What lessons should the EU draw from Brexit?
R. That unity is possible and must be used for positive projects, such as to get out of the COVID crisis, the recovery plan, new industrial and agricultural ambitions, defense cooperation and serious and rigorous foreign border management. The second lesson, beyond the very British reasons for Brexit – populism or that some people in the City wanted to break free from European rules – is that there are reasons that can be found in many other regions of Europe, not just the Kingdom. United. There is a certain social anger, the feeling that Europe does not protect, deindustrialization and immigration that is not under control. You have to be careful, you have to listen, understand and respond. If Brussels does not understand that certain things have to be changed, there will be other Brexits.
P. You have taken the first steps to be the presidential candidate for your party, The Republicans, in France. What does it offer as a counterweight to the extreme right?
R. The far right is strong when others are weak. So we have to give answers to the problems that the French have. If we deal with those issues that concern citizens, far-right populism does not have the opportunity to use the discontent of the people.
P. You have proposed a moratorium to stop migratory arrivals, a referendum on this issue, and you vindicate French sovereignty in the face of European justice in this area.
R. It is a debate that is open in France. This week the former socialist prime minister, Manuel Valls, said exactly the same thing. There are issues on which we are subject to the jurisprudence of the EU Court of Justice or the European Convention on Human Rights, because we have nothing in the Constitution on the matter.
P. There are those who have seen in this proposal on legal sovereignty a door for others to claim the same in that or in other areas.
R. No one can teach me about European engagement. Migration policy is shared between the Member States and the European Union. We must have a Constitution that gives us the ability to take national action in certain areas. For example, limiting family reunification. Otherwise there will be a great division in French society.
Follow all the international information at Facebook and Twitter, o en our weekly newsletter.
Disclaimer: This article is generated from the feed and not edited by our team.
Credit: Source link
