WIREDGOV

Press statement given recently (20 July 2018) by Michel Barnier following the July 2018 General Affairs Council (Article 50).

Minister, dear Gernot,

Ladies and gentlemen,

First and foremost, allow me to extend my best wishes to the Austrian Presidency, which is taking place at a key moment. In particular, it will be under your presidency, dear Gernot, that we will have to conclude the Brexit negotiations.

Between now and the October European Council, which is thirteen weeks away, our objective will be to finalise the Withdrawal Agreement - 80% of which is already “green” in the text, meaning it has been agreed. Our objective is also to agree with the United Kingdom, in a political declaration, the framework for the future partnership.

This morning, I had the opportunity to do a joint analysis with the 27 Ministers, at the end of a new week of negotiations and following my discussion yesterday with Dominic Raab, with whom I had a very useful and friendly meeting. It also follows the British White Paper on the future relationship, which we received last Thursday.

Ladies and gentlemen,

This White Paper is the fruit of an intensive – and necessary – debate in the United Kingdom. Everybody can see that this debate is not yet over.

From our point of view, there are several elements that open the way for a constructive discussion on the political declaration on our future relationship, for example:

• The proposal of a Free Trade Agreement, which should make up the core of our future economic relationship. This matches a key proposal of the European Council guidelines: an ambitious Free Trade Agreement.
• Commitments regarding a level playing field, notably in state aid and environmental and labour standards.
• A large convergence of views on possible and necessary cooperation in the field of internal and external security.

The United Kingdom has provided guarantees regarding the protection of fundamental rights and recognises the European Court of Justice as the only arbiter of EU law.

This will facilitate data exchange between us and the United Kingdom, and therefore it opens the possibility of widening our offer regarding cooperation in internal security, in particular.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Concerning the future economic partnership, the White Paper raises three series of questions on which we expect answers:

1) First of all, are the proposals in the White Paper compatible with the principles that the 27 Heads of State and Government have defined since the beginning of this negotiation - principles which the foreign ministers recalled today? They are:

• The integrity of the Single Market and Customs Union and our Common Commercial Policy;
• The indivisibility of the four freedoms;
• The autonomy of the European Union's decision-making.

These are the principles of my mandate, and I will make sure they are respected scrupulously throughout this negotiation.

In any event, our responsibility is to protect the Single Market of the European Union and what we are, especially nowadays.

Take for example: the United Kingdom has said that it is ready to align to EU standards for goods - but only for those standards that are checked at the border.

The United Kingdom, therefore, would not align itself to our agri-food standards, for example, on GMOs or pesticides, because these are not checked at the border.

This was confirmed to us this week in the negotiations.

But how, then, can we protect European consumers? On what basis could we accept free movement of goods?

2) Second question: are the proposals in the White Paper workable? Can they be applied without additional complexity or bureaucracy?

This question is valid for the regulatory alignment of goods, but even more so for the “Facilitated Customs Arrangement”, proposed by the UK.

This proposal would consist of applying two tariffs - the UK one or the EU one - to goods entering the UK, depending on whether the goods are destined for the British or European markets.

This poses a number of practical questions. For example:

• How can customs authorities verify the final destination of goods, and therefore assure that the correct customs tariff is applied? Is there not a major risk of fraud?
• What would the additional financial and administrative costs be for businesses and customs authorities in order to conform to this new system? I would like to simply say that Brexit cannot, and will not, be a justification for creating additional bureaucracy.
• What would the impact be of a UK tariff that is lower than the EU tariff, with regards to revenues for both the Union budget and Member States?

This complex customs system also poses a more fundamental question:

• How can the Union delegate the application of its customs rules to a non-member of the EU, who would not be subject to governance structures? Would that be acceptable or, simply, legally possible?

3) Third question: are the UK's proposals in the economic interest of the European Union?

It is also in my mandate to protect the economic interests of the European Union.

Two observations:

By definition, the “common rulebook” for goods would not concern services, where the U.K. would be free to diverge. When we know that 20%-40% of the value of products that we use every day is linked to services, how would we avoid unfair competition which European businesses could be faced with?

How could we avoid that an autonomous British commercial policy, while keeping all the advantages of our customs union, offers British companies major competitive advantages, to the detriment of EU companies?

Click here for full press release