Hardcore Remainers love to describe Barnier as a “master negotiator” with a “grasp of detail” that “runs rings” around the “amateurish” British. The immense size of the EU market meant we would have to accept pretty much whatever we were offered. But negotiating isn’t just about making demands, threatening retaliation and goading the other side. The actual objective is to find a deal. Often, that will mean calming ruffled feelings, dialling down the rhetoric and tracking down the common ground, the compromises, and the concessions that can be made.
Measured by that standard, Barnier has been completely hopeless. The result? Even though a deal is clearly in the interests of both sides, right now it looks as if it will be impossible.
The UK has changed its team plenty of times already. Since this process began, we have been through two prime ministers, three Brexit secretaries (and four if you count the abolition of the department) and a couple of chief negotiators. Through it all, Barnier just sails on and on, failing to reach an amicable agreement in round after round of talks.
If the British Government wasn’t refusing his demands for an extension, he’d probably be there in 2030, still lecturing everyone, still priding himself on his fantastic negotiating skills and still without an agreement. It would be easy to break out of that cycle. Fire Barnier, and appoint a replacement. That would have two big advantages. First, it would give the talks a fresh start, and send a powerful signal that the dialogue was about to change, and on the EU as well as the British side of the table. The tone would immediately be different.
Next, it would allow both sides some wriggle room. A new EU negotiator could easily argue he or she had reviewed the mandate and come up with a slightly different set of compromises, while the British could likewise trim their demands and get away with it politically. For breaking a deadlock, some fresh faces often make all the difference. And of course, if we are being honest, it would help if the EU’s chief negotiator wasn’t French (I mean, let’s face it, we irritate them and they sure irritate us sometimes).
A Swedish, Dutch or Finnish chief negotiator could probably get an amicable deal wrapped up in no time.
A deal is massively in the interests of both sides. The EU runs a £72bn trade surplus with Britain. Sure, it can live without that, but tariffs and customs checks will still hurt, and even more so at a time when Covid-19 has already created the worst economic downturn in almost a century. And the EU may not be as important a market as Project Fear sometimes argued, but it still accounts for 43pc of our exports.
We could manage on World Trade Organisation terms, but we would certainly be better off without the disruption that would cause.
Companies, tourists and even pets will all face extra hassle without an agreement. But right now, Barnier himself is the main obstacle to achieving that. Over three years, he has turned himself into part of the problem, not part of the solution. Of course, this is the EU. It doesn’t ever sack people for failing (because, heck, once you started where would you stop?). But, in truth, Barnier should have been fired a long time ago and replaced by someone who knew how to reach a deal – and without him that could still be achievable.