At the start of the third round of Brexit negotiations between the European Union and the United Kingdom (28-31 August 2017), the gap between the parties shows no signs of diminishing. As known, the structure of the negotiations was agreed upon at the initial meeting on 19 June and the priority issues covered by the first phase of the negotiations were identified.
The London government had to give up the long-heralded workhorse: the parallelism between the negotiations on the withdrawal agreement and that concerning the essential aspects of the framework for future relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
Indeed, it was agreed that the second phase of the negotiations, the one in which reciprocal commercial relations will be discussed, will begin only if the European Council has ascertained the existence of "sufficient" progress on three issues in particular: a) the questions concerning the rights of citizens of both parties; b) the liquidation of the financial aspects; c) matters relating to the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
SECOND ROUND, DISAPPOINTING FINANCIAL STATEMENT
However, the outcome of the second negotiating meeting (17-20 July), in which these issues were dealt with in a substantial way for the first time, was extremely disappointing and the gap between the two parties, in some respects, even deepened.
Nor have the numerous position papers published by the UK during the summer break helped to simplify the negotiation. In fact, there has been a further attempt by the British to shift the negotiation from the withdrawal agreement to that on future relations. The operation was not at all appreciated by the European counterpart. In this regard, Guy Verhofstadt, who chairs the European Parliament's Steering Group on Brexit, firmly stated that “To be in & out of the Customs Union & 'invisible borders' is a fantasy”.
Indeed, the proposal of a transitional period (two years?) after March 2019, in which the existing customs union would be essentially maintained and, however, the United Kingdom would be allowed to negotiate trade agreements with third countries, seems inconceivable in the light of the current European rules. Furthermore, applying a simplified system of traceability and telematic customs declarations to the transit of goods and people at the Northern Irish land border, in addition to the political issues it raises in the two territories involved, is certainly likely to create considerable security problems for all round, not only national, in times of terrorism, but also generically linked to products, and to food in particular.
INCREDIBLE INJURIES AND SMOKY BALANCE SHEETS
To unravel the priority and thorny question of the rights of the respective citizens, aside from the joint technical note published at the end of the second meeting, which also highlighted the existence of differences considered "fundamental" by the European negotiator Michel Barnier, he certainly did not contributed to the incredible injury suffered by the Home Office with the allegedly erroneous(!) sending of 100 letters to EU citizens legitimately residing in the United Kingdom, who were given a month to leave the country, under penalty of expulsion after, even, the imposition of restrictive measures of personal freedom.
As for the liquidation of the pending finances, a thick blanket of fog then fell across the English Channel. In fact, the United Kingdom has so far not represented any calculation methodology, except to declare through the mouth of the imaginative Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, in a conversation on BBC Radio Four a few days ago, that "we should pay not a penny more, not a penny less of what we think our legal obligations amount to”.
PERSPECTIVES AND QUESTIONS OF THE THIRD ROUND
What are the prospects at the start of the third round of negotiations? At present, it seems absolutely impossible to rule out the British claim to reconcile, on the one hand, the exit from the internal market and the customs union and, on the other, the conclusion of a special and in-depth partnership with the EU, on which it has so much insisted Prime Minister Theresa May in the withdrawal notification of 29 March 2017. This approach, which Johnson had translated into the "have your cake and eat it" strategy, was obviously rejected to the sender, well before the negotiations began, both by the European Council and the European Parliament. And it should be noted that this position has not so far undergone any decline, on the contrary it has recently been reaffirmed by various European leaders, including the German chancellor.
Indeed, it is completely unlikely that the United Kingdom could maintain the same advantages guaranteed by EU membership after leaving. Such a situation, among other things, would be likely to trigger a dangerous domino effect in those Member States where there are large arrays of Eurosceptic forces.
TOWARDS A SLIDING OF TIMES
Without an improbable leap in quality in the negotiations, it currently appears very difficult to meet the schedule envisaged in June, according to which the meeting of the European Council set for 19-20 October next should decide on the transition to the second phase of the negotiations, where it seems plausible a postponement to December. In this regard, we need to keep the bar straight and not allow Prime Minister May to engage in last-minute negotiations, trying to bring the European Council back to discussing Brexit in open violation of the provisions of art. 50, par. 4, of the Treaty on the EU.
Six months after the notification of withdrawal, while the ticking of the clock continues inexorably, many observers are beginning to doubt that the agreement pursuant to art. 50 TEU within the two-year term set therein. Instead, everything must be done to prepare it, fielding, on both sides, a skilful blend of undoubted pragmatism and remarkable creativity, seasoned with a desirable sprinkling of foresight.
