Since Friday we’ve seen Barnier throw his toys out of the pram due to Britain not bending its knee to the demands of the EU. We’ve also seen Barnier and EU commission friends, from the European Economic Social Committee EESC, being drafted in to act as a sort of middle man saying Britain “Must register real concrete progress in all areas of negotiations, pushing aside roadblocks with a constructive spirit. We cannot afford once more another deadlock in the three areas where progress is needed.”
This body acting as the middle man then starts to promote the words of the EU, as if their terms are acceptable to any nations who seek its independence from any foreign rule.
The EESC says: “Only a strong level playing field guarantees the prevention of any kind of unfair competition in a broad and comprehensive economic partnership. Modern trade is sustainable trade.”
“A single governance framework to avoid unnecessary duplication and inefficiencies, ensuring transparency and proper enforcement.”
“Uphold common values, such as democracy, the rule of law and human rights as the base of any further relationship. The EU cannot accept any lowering of current standards and guarantees of fundamental rights and individual freedoms.”
Last Friday after the negotiations broke and after Barnier held a press conference going after Britain, UK trade negotiator David Frost had his turn, and he destroyed the EU’s stance. David said: “The major obstacle to this is the EU’s insistence on including a set of novel and unbalanced proposals on the so-called “level playing field” which would bind this country to EU law our standards, or determine our domestic legal regimes, in a way that is unprecedented in Free Trade Agreement and not envisaged in the Political Declaration. As soon as the EU recognises that we will not conclude an agreement on that basis, we will be able to make progress.”
David Frost goes on to say: “Although we have had useful discussions on fisheries on the basis of our draft legal text, you continue to insist on fisheries arrangement and access to UK fishing waters in a way that is incompatible with our future status as an independent coastal state. We are fully committed to agreeing on fishing provisions in line with the Political Declaration, but we cannot agree with arrangements that our manifestly unbalanced and against the interests of the UK fishing industry.”
Mr Frost finishes saying: “lt is hard to understand why the EU insists on an ideological approach which makes it more difficult to reach a mutually beneficial agreement.”
You can see from the revealing straight forward response that the EU is still insisting on treating us like a member state wanting a bit of wriggle room, rather than a state wanting its complete independence from the foreign political entity. At this rate, time will run out, and it will be at the cost of those in the EU that will suffer.
Our analysis of the situation is this. If the UK leaves the EU in its entirety without a deal in place, you will see eruptions of anger from nation-states going after the incompetence of the EU hierarchy. This will make the whole EU project very unstable, with more member states seeking the exit.