The United Kingdom formally left the European Union (EU) on January 31, almost four years after a landmark referendum marking the end of forty-six years of integration into the Union. The country remains governed by European regulations until the end of December, and by then the two parties are trying to define their future relationship. But the negotiations stumble in particular on the presence of European fishermen in British waters, and a level playing field. Our correspondent in London Cecile Ducourtieux answered questions from readers of the World on the stakes of these negotiations during a chat.
Page Contents
jyco: In case of “no deal”, who loses more, the EU or the UK?
Cécile Ducourtieux: The British government wants to believe – or lead the British to believe – that the Europeans have more to lose. But the figures are quite clear: 47% of British exports go to the European Union compared to 8% of European exports which go to the United Kingdom. In the event of a trade “no-deal”, a return of border taxes would therefore do more harm to the British, businesses and individuals.
Xavier: Why does Michel Barnier not whistle the end of recess by imposing criteria to access the common market?
The current negotiations go beyond the commercial aspect even if the latter constitutes the most substantial part. London and Brussels also speak of cooperation in research, security and defense, etc. We talk about it less because it “stuck” less. But there is no question for the Europeans to put an end to the trade talks: it would be difficult to agree on the other, crucial aspects of a future deal. In addition, Brussels absolutely refuses to take responsibility for the failure of the negotiations.
A non-fishing European: The EU’s position on fisheries is that the UK must accept the status quo (i.e. that fishing quotas in UK waters are mostly allocated to European countries with no possibility of future adjustment) . Even as a staunch European, I understand how the British can find this unreasonable position: they are leaving the Union after all, and these waters are their territorial waters. Why are the European countries not ready to make an effort on this issue, if this helps to unblock the global situation?
You are right, the Europeans’ negotiating position on fisheries is extreme and it is clearly used by negotiators to obtain the maximum on other subjects. It is not excluded that the Europeans give way. Michel Barnier was ready to make concessions this summer, but has been called to order – for now – by the eight states most concerned by the subject (France in the first row, but also Spain, Belgium or the Netherlands).
Mycroft: Is it reasonable to think that the UK, or at least its leaders, are doing everything they can to not get a deal?
No, it is unreasonable to think that the UK government is “doing everything possible” not to get a deal. Perhaps some in Boris Johnson’s entourage think the “No deal” would be a ” good result “ for the country (as the Prime Minister said on Monday). But Mr Johnson is widely criticized for his failed management of the pandemic, even in his Conservative ranks, where concern is starting to be drawn and his government’s incompetence is pointed out. Closing an agreement would allow these criticisms to be partly silenced. Above all, a “No deal” would give unstoppable arguments to the SNP (Scottish National Party), the Scottish independence party, which is already at the top of the polls.
just-a-thought: Wasn’t the abrupt establishment of the fortnight a way to put pressure on the EU?
No, a priori, no connection. The Johnson government missed the first wave of Covid-19 (nearly 42,000 dead on British territory), it is paralyzed by the fear of a second wave and it wanted to act firmly to try to calm the critics who criticize it for not having acted promptly enough. As a reminder, British airports remained completely open, without any checks, until the end of June 2020.
Welcome to London: Even in the event of a last-minute deal between British and European negotiators, is there a risk of non-ratification among The Twenty-Seven before December 31, which would suspend implementation of the agreement?
This risk cannot be excluded. It will first be a question of knowing whether the agreement obtained must be ratified only by the European Council and the European Parliament, on the EU side, or whether it must go through all the Parliaments of all the European countries … he is a pure and simple commercial treaty, a priori, it will only have the “roadblocks” of the European Council and Parliament to pass. Since Mr Barnier has always been careful not to stray from his mandate over the past four years and to keep them informed at all times, the green light should not be too hard to obtain.
CM: Will an agreement (or a lack of agreement) have to be validated by the British Parliament?
It seems to me difficult that such an agreement is not. Boris Johnson having a comfortable majority in Westminster, with elected Conservatives who are almost all on his “pro-Brexit” line, he would not a priori be in the impossible situation in which Theresa May found herself in 2018-2019 . But “Wait and see”, British politics have become very volatile!
Thomas: Can the European financial passport be withdrawn from the British? What would be the effects of such a decision? Is the subject on the table?
It is already clear that the British are losing the European passport for their financial institutions. It will be replaced at the end of the transition period by what, in Brussels, are called “equivalences”: a right to operate on the Community financial markets granted by the European Commission, but which it can withdraw unilaterally. .
Orion: Bojo boasted recently that he made his country open to the world. Has he succeeded in concluding advantageous trade agreements with other states as he promised?
By leaving the EU, the United Kingdom is in fact supposed to renegotiate around 40 trade treaties with the rest of the world. For the moment, no discussion has succeeded even if the negotiations with certain partners seem very advanced (Japan). With the United States, discussions stumble in particular – it was to be expected – on agriculture (the famous American chlorinated chicken, which the British do not want). Given the US elections in November, there will likely be no “Deal” between London and Washington before long months.
Antoine V.: What is the impact of media coverage (sometimes very politicized on both sides of the Channel) on the negotiations?
Good question: very difficult to answer … In the United Kingdom, the government communicates above all with its national audience before speaking in Brussels, when it “briefs” the press. And the communication is not unequivocal: it can come from several different sources in the government and / or among the deputies. What is the interest, for the Daily Telegraph, for example, to ensure last week, at least for the third time in two years, that “Michel Barnier is on the verge of being dismissed by European leaders” ? To make him bear the responsibility for the impasse of the discussions rather than going to see what is probably stuck in the negotiating position of Downing Street.
London calling: In the absence of an agreement on time, is a further postponement of the official exit from the United Kingdom still a technically possible alternative to an exit? “No deal” ?
The UK left the EU on January 31, 2020. So there is no longer any question of a postponement. We are currently in the transition period: the UK still enjoys almost all the rights (and duties) of a member state, while it is time to find a future agreement with the EU. The Johnson government legislated that this transition ended on December 31. It could still be technically extended, but should be the subject of a sub-agreement between London and Brussels, and Boris Johnson would withdraw from his elected representatives and fellow citizens.
