EU Referendum


Brexit: an own goal with Macron


27/05/2017




One really does wonder what sort of advice Mrs May is getting on the procedural aspects of Brexit and whether she understands it. Specifically, one wonders whether she understands the nature of the Council Decision authorising negotiations with the UK, and the related negotiating directives.

These directives are the formal directions of the 27 Member States to the Union negotiators, and thereby represent the consensus view. As such, they are neither the property of any one Member State, nor within the gift of any one Member to change. Following treaty procedure, they can only be changed by the whole Council in response to a formal proposal from the Commission.

Thus, one must ask, what is the point of Mrs May expending time and political capital at the G7 Summit, asking the new French President, Emmanuel Macron, to alter the structure of the Brexit negotiations.

According to The Times, that's what the Prime Minister did during her first meeting with Macron since his election (amongst other things), pressing him to allow Brexit trade and withdrawal talks to take place at the same time.

We are thus told by British officials that Mrs May "made clear that Britain and the 27 EU member states should be discussing our future relationship with the EU at the same time as discussing the terms of our withdrawal".

The only response, though, was Mr Macron "hinting" that he wanted the issue of the residency rights sorted first. There are "hundreds of thousands of people living in your country, in our country, and sharing our lives", he said after the meeting.

That left Mrs May, at her own press conference having to resort to vague clichés, stating that the discussions had been "good, productive and constructive".

As for Brexit, she managed to tell us all that she was "very clear" and remained clear "that under the treaty we have up to two years to negotiate withdrawal and the future relationship". But, actually, that's not what the treaty says. Article 50 requires the Union to "negotiate and conclude" a withdrawal agreement with the departing State, "taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union".

However, having misinformed herself, Mrs May went on to say that: "When we leave the EU it's important that we know not just the withdrawal terms but what that future relationship will be, which of course will cover trade". She then concluded: "we want a comprehensive free trade agreement - but also cover co-operation in other areas as well".

In seeking to get special (or any concessions) from Macron, Mrs May should have known that she was wasting her time. The French government has already made it very clear that its positions "are identical to those expressed on several occasions by the 27 Member States and by the EU institutions".

France, even under Macron (or especially so), is not going to break ranks with the rest of the "colleagues". For a British prime minister even to attempt to engineer a split – and in such a public manner, where failure is inevitable – is simply a sign of weakness.

More problematical, though, is Mrs May's apparent expectation that she is entitled under the treaties to a definitive statement on the UK's future relationship with the EU, with her even hinting that she expects a free trade agreement to be concluded.

This reflects the ambiguity of the Conservative Party Manifesto, which states: "We believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside our withdrawal, reaching agreement on both within the two years allowed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union".

An expectation, even though wholly unrealistic, has now been translated into something that looks suspiciously like a demand. And, if it is, Mrs May is lining herself up for a fall. She is not going to get a free trade agreement within what is left of the two years allowed under Article 50.

From her statement though, it is difficult to conclude that the Prime Minister has read (or understood) the negotiation directives (repeat link). There, paragraph 19 makes it clear that the best she can hope for is are transitional arrangements, i.e., bridges towards the foreseeable framework for the future relationship.

In pursuing this approach, the Council is concerned about the "efficient allocation of the limited time that Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union imposes for the conclusion of the Agreement". It is thus making it clear that the extent of its ambitions are the withdrawal agreement and the transitional arrangements.

And with no concessions to Mrs May's political difficulties, it has stated that, should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, "this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures to apply".

Already, the Macron diffidence is being seen as a snub, which a source in the French delegation is cited as saying that Macron had insisted on the EU's position that the terms of the divorce must be thrashed out first.

Ramming that home at the G7 summit was Donald Tusk, who has told Britain that it must settle its outstanding liabilities for the sake of "future relations". He has rejected outright any idea that the EU might have its own bill to settle.

Tusk's stance is unequivocal. "We have to respect our obligations", he says, adding: "I think it's not about money, it's about rules and also it's about a good basis for our future relations". Thus, he explains: "This is why we will be very consistent in this problem, but please believe me it's not because of money but because of rules".

For once, though, it isn't all bad news. Mrs May met separately at the G7 with Donald Trump, allowing a Downing Street spokesman to declare: said: "The president and the prime minister reaffirmed their commitment to increasing trade between the UK and the US, including a post-Brexit trade deal".

Canada, apparently, is also pledging to secure a free trade agreement with the UK that takes effect the day after Brexit, using its deal with the European Union as a template. Crucially, it will not demand extra concessions.

However, any such deals can only be restore the status quo ante in respect of the UK's non-EU trading partners. They cannot compensate for any substantial loss of trade with our EU partners, should the Article 50 talks fail.

And in that context, given Mrs May's G7 performance, all she seems to be doing is adding to the general impression that she is out of her depth. This is not an impression she would be wise to foster, repeating the sort of "own goal" that she managed with Macron.