Politics

Does Article 50 give us two years for Brexit, or 18 months?

It's no surprise the government has agreed to publish an exit plan

December 07, 2016
Michel Barnier, Chief Negotiator for the Preparation and Conduct of the Negotiations with the United Kingdom under Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union, speaks during a media conference at EU headquarters in Brussels on Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016. (A
Michel Barnier, Chief Negotiator for the Preparation and Conduct of the Negotiations with the United Kingdom under Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union, speaks during a media conference at EU headquarters in Brussels on Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016. (A

Michel Barnier, the European Commission’s chief Brexit negotiator, made headlines yesterday at his first official press conference when he said: “Time is short…All in all, there will be less than 18 months to negotiate.” Despite the hype around this statement, in itself it is unlikely to have given Theresa May or Brexit watchers any more cause for sleepless nights than already exists.

The calculation of 18 months’ actual negotiating time should not be too controversial, not only because the EU itself will need time to establish its position on whatever the UK eventually proposes, but also because the time needed for the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and the UK to approve the agreement will likely mean that around six months of the two-year period stipulated by Article 50 will realistically be unavailable for deal-making. However, his remarks do touch on a key question around the sequencing that will determine the ultimate nature of the UK and EU’s relationship after Brexit.

Barnier here is referring simply to the “divorce” element of Brexit, the Article 50 negotiation in which a member state must agree with the EU “the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.” The Article 50 negotiation will cover pending issues, such as UK contributions to the EU budget and the position of British officials working for the EU institutions. He also suggested an openness on the EU’s part to transitional arrangements. Such an arrangement would be designed as an interim step on the way to a final UK-EU relationship and would cover complex trade matters like regulatory cooperation on services.

Barnier says the final deal should not be agreed within the Article 50 talks, but the very notion of a “transition” suggests a subsequent final destination agreement. Therefore waiting to discuss this until the UK becomes a “third country,” to use Barnier’s jargon, makes little sense for either side.

It is natural that the UK would prefer the “parallel” approach, considering exit, transition, and final destination together. Meanwhile, the EU is not unreasonable to expect an outline of the UK’s vision for future cooperation. This is why the news that the government will seek to amend rather than simply vote down Labour’s House of Commons’ motion, which calls on Theresa May to give an indication of her plans for the negotiations before Article 50 is triggered, is no great surprise.

In order to achieve a “smooth and orderly” Brexit, and this is what both sides say they want, the UK was always going to have to outline its preferred destination at the outset of the Article 50 process and the EU will, however grudgingly, need to engage in some discussion about the future UK-EU relationship within these talks.