Politics and future European elections, Michel Barnier does not want to talk about it. But there is no doubt that he is thinking about it while shaving in the morning when the name of the person who will lead the LR list during the spring 2024 election is not yet known. For the time being, the former European commissioner, who was also the negotiator for the EU in the context of Brexit, only wants to talk about the economy: the lies of Boris Johnson, but also the mistakes of a naive Europe haunted by free trade and deregulation, and the setbacks of the Franco-German couple. With a note of hope: yes, Europe is moving and drawing lessons from the past. An obligation to avoid implosion.
L’Express: Just over seven years ago, the British voted 51.9% in favor of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. Today, a recent poll reveals that 56% of them think Brexit is a big mistake. What inspires you, a big mess?
Michael Barnier: Divorce is always negative, costly and painful. And there, it is a divorce where no one won. The consequences are innumerable. I was appointed negotiator in October 2016 to put on the table all the consequences of Brexit, whether on the European or British side. I observe that the British not only ignored them during the referendum campaign but that several years later they still underestimated what was to come. I remember having dinner with former Prime Minister Theresa May, Jean Claude Juncker, then President of the Commission, and the Minister in charge of negotiations, David Davis. A few days earlier, the latter had given an interview saying that the United Kingdom wanted to keep the European agencies present across the Channel – that of medicines and banks. Which was impossible!
Those who promoted Brexit lied to the people, starting with Boris Johnson and his fellow traveler Nigel Farage. I also remember another meeting with Farage during which I showed him the photo of Johnson in front of his campaign bus with the slogan, “We will collect 350 million pounds a week to fund the NHS”, the public health service. It was not true. Farage then answers me: “You are right, I told Boris not to do it”. These people have been cynical. No one has ever been able to show me any added value of Brexit. This is nonsense.
To all those who criticize Brussels and its acarnates, you say today, no salvation without the European Union?
Two illusions lulled Brexit. The first is that of believing that we are better off on our own in today’s world. A medium-sized country like the United Kingdom where France does not have enough critical mass to be respected. What makes us Europeans respected by the United States or China? It is not yet our diplomatic power. This is the power of our internal market, the single market which is much more than just a free trade area. It is a unique ecosystem with norms, standards, regulations, a common jurisdiction for 450 million consumers and 22 million businesses. No one enters this market by chance. You get there when you follow the rules. Together, we have the critical mass to count, for example to regulate the activity of digital giants or resist financial speculation.
The second illusion, on this side of the Channel, is to believe that such an event, Brexit, which was improbable, would never happen.
But doesn’t Europe work better without the UK?
We weakened collectively when the British left the Union. Despite their resistance or opposition, we were stronger together. I note with sadness that the economic situation in the United Kingdom is currently very difficult: inflation, debt, social and health system crisis…. All indicators are red. We shouldn’t rejoice. And we French people are certainly not in a position to give lessons! All these difficulties are not related to Brexit. But all have been made worse by Brexit. With the government of Rishi Sunak, a better relationship is being built and we have finally been able to conclude a so-called Windsor agreement on Northern Ireland, which had been delayed for three years by Boris Johnson. Still, the little music that we hear here and there according to which relaxations or special treatment could be granted to the British is illusory. Perhaps in Brussels some people have an interest in saying that it is possible. But we have to be very clear. The British have left the single market and they won’t have one foot in and one foot out. I will be very vigilant!
On what subjects do they hope for particular treatments?
For financial services first, because they have lost the financial passport, an essential key to being able to carry out transactions on the Union’s markets. This loss penalized the City. The second point concerns the rules of origin on the industry. There is no question of the UK becoming an assembly country and exporting to Europe without tariffs. We cannot allow our industry to be further destroyed!
There is no revenge or spirit of punishment here. If we relax the rules for access to the single market, then we create a dangerous precedent…
Does another referendum on EU membership seem possible to you one day?
The door is open… But frankly, I don’t see a new referendum for at least a generation. The question will arise when pragmatism regains the upper hand over ideology and rhetoric. Either way, it will be the sovereign choice of the British people.
Simply, you have to understand that between their departure and the time when they would like to come back – if they want to -, many things will have changed. They will undoubtedly have diverged on certain subjects in tax, social, environmental matters: this is also why they left. But the Europe they left is no longer the same. We are learning lessons from Brexit. Brexit was undoubtedly wanted by demagogues and nationalists, but they used social anger and the feeling of abandonment in many regions in the face of the consequences of poorly controlled globalization.
Do not confuse populism with popular sentiment. Popular sentiment must be listened to, it explains the yellow vests crisis and the vote in favor of the extremes. Europe also has a responsibility in all of this. The naivety in our trade, the poor governance of the euro… Thirty years of ultra-liberalism and deregulation have aggravated the consequences of successive crises, causing the destruction of millions of jobs.
We did Schengen and free movement within the Union, but without putting in place real control of the external borders. We are finally starting to learn from our mistakes. Two examples? Finally, we have an industrial ambition. 4 or 5 years ago, it was taboo in Brussels to talk about industrial policy. To get out of the Covid crisis, we finally managed a major joint loan of 750 billion euros, which was unthinkable a few years ago. Nevertheless, it remains to find the resources to repay it! The carbon tax, which is a good initiative, was supposed to bring in between 12 and 14 billion euros each year; in the end, it will only bring in 3 or 4 billion. Other own resources have not been created. The tax on the financial markets has still not seen the light of day. It will therefore be necessary to appeal to national budgets, contrary to the commitments of the President of the Republic…
In this Europe which seeks to reinvent itself, the Franco-German couple does not seem on the same wavelength. Isn’t this a major obstacle to this moult?
On this point, the situation is serious because there is too great a divergence, contrary to the ambition of the Elysée treaty signed between De Gaulle and Adenauer.
The idea was to overcome quarrels and build together. This Franco-German dialogue has often been complicated, except during the Giscard and Schmidt years. But respect and understanding made it possible to overcome opposition and always raise the horizon. Today, we have differences on energy, nuclear, defence, on the influence of one and the other. There is an imbalance in favor of Germany, which dominates a lot in Brussels. Franco-German cooperation is less and less sufficient but more and more necessary. If we don’t agree, the system will crash.
What to do, then, to re-establish the link with Germany?
Speak as much as possible with one voice. For example, in the recent episode of the appointment of an American expert as Chief Economist in the Competition Directorate, we should have expressed ourselves together with Germany to preserve European interests. There are things that we must do together, and others that depend on us to regain respect and our credibility. The fact that we are in debt in excess of 3000 billion euros, when we were tied with Germany 18 years ago, is part of it. Not to mention our abysmal trade deficit. These are subjects that cause us to lose credibility and respect on the outside and weaken our influence. It is a good thing that Bruno Le Maire speaks German because it facilitates understanding, but that is not enough to convince the Germans!