Barnier/Davis press conference after first substantial round of Brexit talks.

Speaking after four days of negotiations, the Chief Negotiator for the EU, Michel Barnier, today said there had been some areas of agreement about how British citizens living abroad and EU nationals living in the UK should be treated after Brexit. However, he said the EU believes citizens’ rights should be backed by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Mr Barnier said a clarification of the UK’s position on settling its outstanding debts to the EU when it leaves was also needed.

He said: “A clarification of the UK position is indispensable for us to negotiate and for us to make sufficient progress on this financial dossier, which is inseparable from the other withdrawal dossiers…We know that agreement will not be achieved through incremental steps. As soon as the UK is ready to clarify the nature of its commitments, we will be prepared to discuss this with the British negotiators.”

On the pressing issue of the island of Ireland, there was a first discussion on the impact of Brexit on two key subjects: the Good Friday Agreement and the Common Travel Area. Mr Barnier said there was agreement that the Good Friday Agreement, “in all its dimensions, requires more detailed discussions.” In particular, “more work needs to be done to protect North-South cooperation between Ireland and Northern Ireland.”

There was also agreement that the UK should clarify in the next session how it intends on maintaining the Common Travel Area after leaving the EU.

Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, David Davis, said talks had been “robust” but there was a lot to be “positive” about in terms of the overall negotiations.

The takeaway: there was scant evidence of progress in a press conference to mark the end of the first substantive round of Brexit talks. Both sides looked – and sounded- as far apart as ever on key issues, most particularly on EU citizens’ rights and the divorce bill. Michel Barnier said there was a “fundamental divergence” with the British negotiating team over the way that the rights of EU citizens in the UK would be guaranteed, adding that he needed clarity on the UK’s position on the Brexit bill. Brexit However, David Davis said “We shouldn’t expect incremental progress in every round [of talks].”

Three rounds of Brexit talks were scheduled in June: for August, September, and October. There will be an EU summit in late October, where EU leaders will decide on whether the UK has made sufficient progress on financial issues – the so-called ‘divorce bill’. Only then can the UK progress to trade talks with the EU.

The press conference came today after Andrea Leadsom, Leader of the House of Commons, confirmed the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will be debated in the Commons on Thursday 7th and Monday 11th September.

The UK Parliament is now in recess, and will return on 5th September.

HL EU Committee publishes Brexit: devolution report

The House of Lords EU Committee has today (19 July 2017) published its report ‘Brexit: devolution’ which examines the impact of Brexit on the devolved institutions.

The key message of the report is Brexit presents fundamental constitutional challenges to the United Kingdom as a whole. Therefore, the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments, and – ‘if it is formed’ – the Northern Ireland Executive, will have to set aside their differences and work constructively together to achieve an outcome that ‘protects the interests of all parts of the UK’. The report submits that no durable solution will be possible without the consent of all the nations of the UK.

The report’s conclusions for Northern Ireland included (see chapter 3, para 93-99):

  • Due to Northern Ireland’s ‘distinctive’ geographical, historical, political, and constitutional circumstances, it will be ‘profoundly affected’ by Brexit. There will be a significant impact, including on cross-border trade, the agri-food sector, energy, transport, fisheries, access to EU labour, healthcare provision, tourism, and police and security cooperation.
  • It appears the Brexit debate has ‘undermined political stability and exacerbated cross-community divisions, contributing to the collapse of the Northern Ireland Executive and the calling of an early Assembly election’. This, together with the Conservative-DUP confidence and supply agreement at Westminster, and with no nationalist MPs having taken their seats in the new Parliament, ‘has created new uncertainty, underlining the fragility of the political settlement in Northern Ireland’.
  • Political stability in Northern Ireland must not be allowed to become ‘collateral damage’ of Brexit.
  • The specific circumstances in Northern Ireland give rise to unique issues that will need to be addressed during the Brexit negotiations.
  • The unique nature of UK-Irish relations necessitates a unique solution. The report welcomed the European Council’s commitment to seek “flexible and imaginative solutions”, and asks the UK Government to work with the EU negotiators to identify and outline such solutions as a matter of priority.

It is interesting that the EU Committee acknowledged that the use of the phrase ‘special status’ in respect of Brexit is a politically contentious term for unionists, who do not want Northern Ireland’s place in the UK to be undermined. The Committee did however advocate consideration for the specific circumstances in Northern Ireland, which give rise to unique issues. The report finds that these issues, including the issue of the border on the island of Ireland will need to be addressed during the Brexit negotiations.

 

House of Commons – Select Committee Chair Elections – The Results.

Eleven select committees held elections for the position of Chair on Wednesday 12 July, including the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

There were also seventeen select committees where the position of Chair was uncontested. If there was only one candidate for a position, the MP was deemed elected unopposed.

Results are as follows:

Departmental committees
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – Rachel Reeves (Labour; Leeds West)
Communities and Local Government – Clive Betts (Labour; Sheffield South East.)
Culture, Media and Sport – Damian Collins (Conservative;  Folkestone and Hythe – unopposed)
Defence – Dr Julian Lewis (Conservative; New Forest East)
Education – Robert Halfon (Conservative; Harlow)
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – Neil Parish (Conservative; Tiverton and Honiton)
Exiting the European Union – Hilary Benn (Labour; Leeds Central – unopposed)
Foreign Affairs – Tom Tugendhat (Conservative; Tonbridge and Malling)
Health –  Dr Sarah Wollaston (Conservative; Totnes – unopposed)
Home Affairs – Yvette Cooper (Labour; Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford – unopposed)
International Development – Stephen Twigg (Labour; Liverpool West Derby – unopposed)
International Trade – Angus MacNeil (Scottish National Party; Na h-Eileanan an Iar – unopposed)
Justice – Robert Neill (Conservative; Bromley and Chislehurst – unopposed)
Northern Ireland Affairs – Dr Andrew Murrison (Conservative; South West Wiltshire)
Science and Technology – Norman Lamb (Liberal Democrat; North Norfolk)
Scottish Affairs – Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party; Perth and North Perthshire – unopposed)
Transport – Lilian Greenwood (Labour; Nottingham South)
Treasury – Nicky Morgan (Conservative; Loughborough)
Welsh Affairs –David T C Davies (Conservative; Monmouth – unopposed)
Women and Equalities – Maria Miller (Conservative; Basingstoke – unopposed)
Work and Pensions – Frank Field (Labour; Birkenhead – unopposed)

Other specified select committees:
Backbench Business Committee – Ian Mearns (Labour; Gateshead)
Environmental Audit – Mary Creagh (Labour; Wakefield – unopposed)
Petitions – Helen Jones (Labour; Warrington North – unopposed)
Procedure –  Charles Walker (Conservative; Broxbourne – unopposed)
Public Accounts – Meg Hillier (Labour; Hackney South and Shoreditch – unopposed)
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs – Bernard Jenkin (Conservative; Harwich and North Essex – unopposed)
Standards – Sir Kevin Barron (Labour; Rother Valley – unopposed)

No doubt there will be interesting times ahead with Nicky Morgan as Chair of the Treasury Select Committee. A pro-Remainer, she saw off the arch-Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg to position herself as a thorn in the side of the UK Government’s plans for leaving the EU. The former Treasury minister and Education Secretary was elected by MPs across all parties, but with particular support from those on the Labour benches who want to stop Mrs May’s hardline Brexit plan to leave the single market, customs union and jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

Another one to watch is the new Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Dr Andrew Murrison is a proponent of the Military Covenant’s extension to Northern Ireland. The mainstream unionist parties support the extension, but the nationalist parties do not. Indeed, it was a thorny issue during the long-running talks process at Stormont to restore a power-sharing Executive.

The Repeal Bill Cometh.

The ‘Great Repeal Bill’ promised by the Prime Minister in October 2016 will be published today, Thursday 13th July.

It will repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, and repatriate EU law into British law, thereby ending the general supremacy of EU law.

The Bill, described by the Prime Minister as an “essential step” to EU withdrawal, was the centrepiece of the Queen’s Speech.

When published, its short title will be different as value-laden terms such as ‘great’ are not permitted in legislative titles. It is expected to be titled the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

Once it is introduced to the UK Parliament, it will be scrutinised through debates in the Houses of Commons and Lords, and more detailed line-by-line scrutiny in select committees. Amendments can be made to the bill. Both the Commons and the Lords will need to approve the bill, with any amendments, before it can be passed.

Even if the Bill is relatively short, the scrutiny process may take some time if previous examples of EU bills are any guide – remember the legislation to ratify the Maastricht Treaty?
This follows on from the white paper published by the Department for Exiting the European Union on 30 March 2017 which set out the objectives for the proposed Great Repeal Bill:

  • Repeal the European Communities Act (1972) on the day the UK leaves the EU,
  • Replicate some 20,000 pieces of EU law onto the UK statute book,
  • Convert directly-applicable EU law (EU regulations) into UK law,
  • Preserve all the laws that have been made in the UK to implement EU obligations,
  • Ensure the rights in EU treaties that are relied on directly in court by an individual will continue to be available in UK law,
  • Historic European Court of Justice case law will be given the same binding, or precedent, status in UK courts as Supreme Court decisions, and
  • Create powers to make secondary legislation under statutory instrument procedures.

The White Paper commits to ending the supremacy of EU law in UK law. It will no longer be the case that every law passed in Westminster has to be compatible with those passed in Brussels.

It also says that past judgements of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will be downgraded in status after Brexit. ECJ judgements will have no role in the interpretation of laws passed by Parliament after the UK has left the EU. Pre-Brexit ECJ judgements will continue to have some role in interpreting pre-Brexit EU law, but the UK Supreme Court will be able to overrule these decisions in some cases.

The role of post-Brexit ECJ judgements on pre-Brexit laws is still unclear.

Issues might arise with the two ‘D’s: delegated powers and devolution (remember the devolved states in all of this Brexit mess?)

Regarding delegated powers, the White Paper submitted that a “prohibitively large amount of primary legislation” would be required to make all the necessary changes to the body of EU law. Therefore, it will “provide a power to correct the statute book, where necessary, to rectify problems occurring as a consequence of leaving the EU”.

The UK Government has acknowledged there will need to be some constraints on how ministers can use secondary legislation to change the law. The problem is that the White Paper is vague about what these constraints will be. For instance, the White Paper acknowledges that ministers’ new powers will have to be time limited, but does not actually discuss what these time limits will be.

The UK Government therefore is seeking a “discussion between Government and Parliament as to the most pragmatic and effective approach to take” on powers.

The issue of devolution poses another headache. The White Paper committed to “intensive discussions with the devolved administrations” about how policy powers repatriated to the UK from the EU will be distributed between the various states which comprise the UK.

Per the Queen’s Speech, the Bill committed to “maintaining the scope of devolved decision making powers immediately after EU-exit” and “having intensive discussion and consultation with devolved administrations on where lasting common frameworks are needed”.

Following the Speech, Prime Minister Theresa May appeared to admit that the consent via Sewel motions of the devolved parliaments may need to be sought before the passage of the Bill. Indeed, the Scottish Secretary David Mundell has recently echoed his previous assurances that a Legislative Consent Motion would be required for some parts of the Bill which are relevant to devolved competences. Other Brexit may also require Legislative Consent Motions.

Confused? You are in good company. For all this has raised the prospect that one or more of the devolved administrations could block the Bill if it does not propose that repatriated powers do not flow directly to them. And even better, there is uncertainty over the extent to which this vote could derail the Bill.

Why bother with such a Bill, it might be asked. Well, EU law covers areas such as environmental regulation, workers’ rights, and the regulation of financial services. Without the Repeal Bill, when the UK withdrawals from the EU, all these rules and regulations would no longer have legal standing in the UK, creating a ‘black hole’ in the UK statute book and leading to uncertainty and confusion. By carrying EU laws over into UK law, the UK Government plans to provide for what David Davis, Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, calls ‘a calm and orderly exit’ from the EU, while giving the UK Government and UK Parliament time to review, amend or scrap these laws in future.

Essentially, The purpose of the Bill is to provide certainty and continuity, ensuring the same rules and laws apply immediately after Brexit wherever possible, and supporting a smooth transition.

MPs will not have an opportunity to vote on the Bill until the autumn. This is perhaps good news for the Conservative government, which knows it will face stiff opposition to the bill. Indeed, it feels as though all parties in the Commons (sans the DUP, who have pledged to support the UK Government in all matters Brexit as part of their confidence and supply agreement) will unite in some form to make the Bill’s progress through Parliament hell for the Prime Minister.

The Labour Party, for example, has vowed to try to wreck the Brexit process by voting against the flagship “Repeal Bill”, unless Theresa May makes dramatic changes.

The Opposition usually gives the Government opportunity to change a Bill between its second and third reading, which would have postponed a Commons flashpoint until next year.

Yet Labour is arguing that government ministers have plenty of time to make those changes before second reading in October.

Keir Starmer, the party’s Brexit spokesman, said recently Labour would attempt to defeat the legislation in just three months’ time. Labour disagrees with most of the Bill’s contents, and is demanding the Bill includes full protection of rights for British workers and consumers, of environmental standards and the devolution of powers across the country. It is also determined to prevent a Government power grab through the use of delegated ‘Henry VIII powers’, allowing future changes without proper Parliamentary scrutiny.

Labour does accept it will not be able to defeat the Bill at its second reading, anticipated to be in October, without a revolt by some Conservative MPs, given Ms May’s working Commons majority of 12. However, it is hoping to play a game of ‘divide and conquer’ – the party believes it will be very difficult for the ten Scottish Conservative MPs to support the Repeal Bill without strong guarantees on devolution.

And it is not just Labour who is promising a difficult path for the UK Government. The Liberal Democrats, who after all fought the general election on a pledge to stage a second referendum on Brexit, also said they would make the passage of the Bill “hell”.

The publication of the Bill today is merely the first step in a long and complex journey for the Conservative Government. The real Parliamentary showdown will not be today. It will be come the autumn.

French Presidential Election 2017 – the outcome.

There we have it. It’s been a tense election of sharp rhetoric, and discourse pondering the future of France. But the second round of voting came and went today. And France has a new President.

Emmanuel Macron – the pro-EU, social liberal-won with a decisive victory over the far-right Marine Le Pen that his supporters hailed as holding back the tide of populism.

Macron, who at 39 becomes the youngest French President since Bonaparte, is a former economy minister who ran as a “neither left nor right” independent. He promise to shake up the French political system, and took 65.1% of the vote to Le Pen’s 34.9%, according to initial projections from early counts. It is a stronger-than-expected victory, and a stunning achievement for a novice to electoral politics – Macron has never been elected to public office before.

The size of the victory margin however does not disguise the fact a section of the French electorate felt disenchantment. Pollsters said between 25%-26% of voters stayed away, meaning turnout at its lowest level for the second round of a French Presidential election since 1969. Among those who did vote, some 12% submitted a blank or other invalid ballot, indicating they did not support either candidate.

Yet the far-right can also take some comfort in its best electoral showing in French history. Although Le Pen fell well short of the presidency, her score is roughly double what her father, party founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, got in the second round in 2002. No doubt the anti-immigration, anti-EU Front National’s supporters will claim that on the back of this performance, the party has a central place as an opposition force in France.

Not too much comfort, however. This win also marks the third consecutive setback for European populist parties who preached a mix of Trump-style nationalism and protectionism to voters fed up with conventional politics. Austria saw pro-European Green Alexander Van der Bellen defeat far-right Norbert Hofer in the country’s Presidental election. To the Netherlands, which saw sitting Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) see off far-right Party for Freedom (PVV). France today ultimately decided to opt for politics of hope over hate.

Of course, there are challenges on the horizon. The next test for Macron and Le Pen — as well as the mainstream parties who for the first time failed to get a candidate through to the second round of a Presidential election — is next month’s Parliamentary election. Its outcome will determine whether Macron can translate his strong mandate into enough seats in the National Assembly, and a governing mandate to run France. Macron will have to remember that some of his voters today came from other parties across the political spectrum and turned out not in complete support of his programme, but to stop the Front National.

To win next month’s Parliamentary elections, Macron will have to defy political tradition once more. His own political movement, En Marche, was formed just last year and this will be the first time it has fielded Parliamentary candidates. And, even if Macron wins enough seats in Parliament to lead the government, he will face resistance from unions, a hostile left, and the far-right to his proposed economic reforms.

Challenges and battles lie ahead. Yet tomorrow will seem a little brighter after this result. The far-right once more could not achieve their objectives. Across Europe, the far-right, with its policies of fear and division, did not prevail.

And it will not prevail.

Bill of Rights for NI: why have one?

I have previously written about the student working group on human rights I am a part of. Our main area of focus is on the Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, as provided for in the Good Friday Agreement 1998.

Our work to date has involved examining the historical context to the proposal of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, and considering the provision for a Bill of Rights within the Good Friday Agreement. I personally have examined and summarised the 2008 submission of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and the Joint Committee’s 2011 advice on a Charter of Rights for the island of Ireland. Another participate has summarised the response of the Northern Ireland Office to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission 2008 submission. We are currently working on incorporating our research into a report, and we will conclude by submitting our argument that a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland is necessary, and now is the time to see it realised.

Northern Ireland faces great uncertainty in the wake of Brexit. We are currently experiencing a political vacuum – no agreement was after weeks of talks to form a new Executive after the snap March election, meaning we have no devolved government, and now talks are paused for the snap General Election – with the threat of direct rule looming on the horizon. Given political uncertainty and lack of government, the need to recognise and protect human rights in Northern Ireland is vital.

Many countries have a bill of rights in some form. It has been found that 82% of constitutions drafted between 1788 and 1948 contained some form of human rights protection. This figure increased to 93% between 1949 and 1975. This trend continued throughout the 1980s, and by 1990 onwards, as many countries underwent peace processes and transition towards new constitutional settlements, human rights frameworks became routine. This ‘routine’ was applied to Northern Ireland as it underwent a peace process and constitutional transition in 1998.

A bill of rights is a constitutional document, essentially a list, of the most important rights and freedoms belonging to the citizens of a state. The primary purpose of this document is the provision of rights, and the protection of those rights against infringement, with the bill of rights acting as a type of contract between citizens and the state.

States may opt to enshrine a bill of rights as they recognise there are certain values and principles which are so basic, and so fundamental, they wish to put them beyond the reach of government. Rights such as the right to fair trial are arguably matters to be protected against state interference, irrespective of shifts in the political landscape. Bills of rights therefore aim to separate these fundamental values from politics, and subjective political interpretation.

Adopting a bill of rights also provides for a clearer understanding of the democratic structure of the state, especially with regards to restrictions on political decision-making, and the state’s responsibilities for its citizens. This model emphasises participation, but also ensures a balance between necessary limitation of majority rule – thus preventing any abuses of power – and the encouragement of equal participation of all.

States therefore tend to adopt bills of rights when agreeing upon a new or revised constitution, as part of a peace settlement after a period of internal conflict, and/or as a solution to political, legal or moral pressure to address failures to protect rights.

Bills of rights provide legal recognition and protection of rights to all citizens, but it applies particularly to those within marginalised and vulnerable groups. This is of relevance to Northern Ireland, where human rights issues have been raised in relation to children and women in detention, women accessing reproductive healthcare, equality for the LGBT* community, and the Irish-speaking community. Adopting a Bill of rights would ensure a defense for these communities, and provide legal protection of their rights and redress for violations of same.

A Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland is not a new proposition. Since the 1960s, there have been calls from across the political divide for a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. The common argument is a Bill of Rights would provide for a stable, shared society built on equality and non-discrimination. As part of a constitutional foundation, it would ensure no matter who was in power, human rights would be respected.

EU versus UK: pre-negotiations

Last Saturday, the leaders of the 27 remaining EU member states quickly agreed to a negotiating path towards a quick divorce deal with the UK. It is now up to the UK to agree to the guidelines so that the talks can begin. The main delay appears to be the UK election.

Despite the unpromising lead-up to Saturday’s summit in Brussels, including an awkward dinner between European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and UK Prime Minister Theresa May, and mutterings about the UK blocking EU budget talks ahead of their elections, the EU27 held out clear prospects of compromise.

However, EU leaders did not appear wholly confident, with concerns mounting that the British Prime Minister still does not grasp how long, complex and difficult the path to agreement will be. The main fear seems to be that even if the Conservatives record a strong victory in next month’s General Election, Mrs May will not be willing to moderate her negotiating positions. Indeed, the converse might be true: bolstered with a strong showing, Mrs May might be more inclined to refuse to engage in compromise efforts.

The European Council’s guidelines  define the framework for negotiations under Art 50 TEU, and set out the overall positions and principles that the Union will pursue throughout the negotiation. The European Council is settling itself down for a bumpy ride, and it is not pulling its punches. In the Core Principles section of the guidelines, it writes:

It reiterates its wish to have the United Kingdom as a close partner in the future. It further reiterates that any agreement with the United Kingdom will have to be based on a balance of rights and obligations, and ensure a level playing field. Preserving the integrity of the Single Market excludes participation based on a sector-by-sector approach. A non-member of the Union, that does not live up to the same obligations as a member, cannot have the same rights and enjoy the same benefits as a member. In this context, the European Council welcomes the recognition by the British Government that the four freedoms of the Single Market are indivisible and that there can be no “cherry picking”. The Union will preserve its autonomy as regards its decision-making as well as the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Basically: the UK cannot boast about a hard Brexit, seek to withdraw itself financially from the EU, but still expect to benefit. After all, you cannot have the benefits of club membership without paying your membership fees.

Under Agreement on arrangements for an orderly withdrawal, the European Council  strongly reiterates citizen’s rights:

The right for every EU citizen, and of his or her family members, to live, to work or to study in any EU Member State is a fundamental aspect of the European Union. Along with other rights provided under EU law, it has shaped the lives and choices of millions of people. Agreeing reciprocal guarantees to safeguard the status and rights derived from EU law at the date of withdrawal of EU and UK citizens, and their families, affected by the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Union will be the first priority for the negotiations. Such guarantees must be effective, enforceable, non-discriminatory and comprehensive, including the right to acquire permanent residence after a continuous period of five years of legal residence. Citizens should be able to exercise their rights through smooth and simple administrative procedures.

The European Council also recognised the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland quandary, and seeks to limit any potential damage:

The Union has consistently supported the goal of peace and reconciliation enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts, and continuing to support and protect the achievements, benefits and commitments of the Peace Process will remain of paramount importance. In view of the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, flexible and imaginative solutions will be required, including with the aim of avoiding a hard border, while respecting the integrity of the Union legal order. In this context, the Union should also recognise existing bilateral agreements and arrangements between the United Kingdom and Ireland which are compatible with EU law.

Whilst EU law must be recognised and upheld, the EU is willing to be flexible in any final agreement in order to prevent the imposition of a hard border.

Developing the guidelines was the relatively easy part, highlighting as they do the elements all member state agree on: the need to negotiate withdrawal terms before agreement on future relations, and prioritising citizens’ rights, the financial settlement, and border concerns — particularly for Ireland.

However, there is always going to be differences under the surface of the guidelines. And the risk of disagreement among the EU 27 on detailed aspects of the Brexit negotiations is high, largely because the interests of individual countries in the Brexit talks diverge as much as they do on any other issue. A key priority which is subject to different interpretations and interests is citizens’ rights. On the one hand, countries such as Poland and Lithuania are concerned about their own citizens now living and working in the UK. On the other hand, countries such as Spain and Malta have a primary interest in the fate of British retirees who live in those countries, and the related costs for health care and other services.

The European Council has prepped its hand. It put on a strong, unified showing in its swift agreement on the guidelines. But for how long will it stay unified?

Fast forward to this week, and it is the turn of the European Commission to lay down its cards in advance of the forthcoming Brexit negotiations.

The EU’s Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier, presenting the European Commission’s proposed negotiating directives today, said it was wrong to try to make people believe the separation will be a painless process with no impact on people’s lives. He added that it was not the European Commission’s intention to “punish” the UK for leaving the bloc.

He hinted the talks process will be long and complicated, and warned no one should expect a quick deal:

“Some have created the illusion that Brexit would have no material impact on our lives or that negotiations can be concluded quickly and painlessly. This is not the case.

“We need sound solutions, we need legal precision and this will take time.”

Barnier said in order to ensure the talks succeed and agreement is reached, the UK “must put a great deal of energy and effort” into reaching agreement on key three areas: borders (especially between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland), the rights of EU citizens, and the process for calculating a financial settlement.

It was said that the so-called divorce bill – now estimated at €100bn (£84.5bn) -was not a punishment for the UK leaving, but rather a “settling of accounts”.

Barnier made sure to highlight the remaining 27 member states’ show of unity at last weekend’s summit.

It is evident that the looming negotiations will not be straightforward – perhaps much to the displeasure of the British government, especially if time is spent wrangling over the divorce bill. ‘Take Back Control’ must seem like a distant memory, now.

I for one welcome the stance taken by the EU institutions pertaining to the island of Ireland. It is great to see the EU confirm it will attempt to be as flexible as possible when considering the imposition of a border. It certainly makes a change from the endless refrain of “no return to the borders of the past” from the British government…