It had been billed in advance as a relaxed dinner which would allow Theresa May to entertain a couple of the most powerful men in the EU, perhaps to get to know each other a little better and even help smooth the way before the Brexit negotiations get going officially after the general election.
Instead it was to light the fuse for an explosive exchange which culminated in Mrs May accusing Brussels of trying to sabotage Brexit and even rig our own elections. What do you make of it all? Was Mrs May justified or did she overreact?
The first soundings from that now infamous dinner suggested all had been sweetness and light. According to Downing Street, a pleasant time had been had by all from the moment Jean Claude Juncker, the EU President, had exchanged pecks on the cheek with Mrs May until they parted company a few convivial hours later. But scarcely had Mr Juncker returned to Brussels than the leakers got to work and a very different picture emerged. A leading German newspaper reported that Mr Juncker had phoned the German Chancellor Angela Merkel and, in their conversation, described Mr May as “delusional” and “living in another galaxy”. It said he left the dinner “ten times more sceptical about the prospect of a deal” than when he had arrived. The man everyone believed was behind the leaks, Juncker’s chief of staff Martin Selmayr, added his own take on the evening. It was, he said, a “sad and sorry event” and for good measure he added: “Brexit can never become a success”.
Downing Street’s initial reaction to all this was to describe it as “Brussels gossip” but that approach was to prove short-lived. It was overtaken by reports that the so-called “divorce bill” with which the UK would be presented by the EU was rather larger than anyone on this side of the Channel had anticipated. It had, it was said, risen from 50 billion euros to 100 billon. The other Brussels big shot who’d been at the dinner, the lead Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier, said it was an illusion for the UK to think Brexit could be painless. Not only did he describe the bill as incontestable, he waved another red flag before the British bull and warned that the EU would insist on the right of the European Court of Justice to adjudicator over a Brexit deal.
So the stage was set for some high drama – and Mrs May duly provided it. When she returned from popping into the Palace to tell the Queen she was calling an election she stopped off to have a few words with the reporters in Downing Street. Instead of the usual pleasantries they might have expected she delivered what many journalists interpreted as a declaration of war on Brussels. She accused European Union politicians and officials of seeking to disrupt our own general election and willing Brexit to fail. She made no attempt to conceal her anger at what she saw as threats and leaks from Brussels.
She denied flatly that her EU guests had found her ill-prepared for Brexit and unwilling to negotiate and she went on: “In the last few days we have seen just how tough these talks are likely to be. Britain’s negotiating position has been misrepresented in the continental press. The European commission’s negotiation have hardened. Threats have been issued by European politicians and officials. All of these acts have been deliberately timed to affect the result of the general election which will take place on June 8th”.
Mrs May repeated what she has said many times: no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal and there was at least a hint of a conciliatory approach when she said: “We want a deep and special partnership with the European Union and we want the EU to succeed”.
Then she put the boot in again: “But the events of the last view days have shown that whatever our wishes, and however reasonable the positions of Europe’s other leaders, there are some in Brussels who do not want these talks to succeed, who do not want Britain to prosper.” And she ended with this appeal: “Give me your backing to fight for Britain”.
So what do you make of all this? Was the attack justified – a necessary shot across the bows of those who will sit across the table from us when negotiations formally get under way next month from a genuinely angry prime minister? Or was it a case of Mrs May making the cold political calculation that this tough approach would win support from those who may need some persuading to vote for her on June 8th? And how optimistic are you that the negotiations will lead to a good deal for the UK? Do you agree that no deal is better than a bad deal or do you believe it is vital that we come away with some sort of trade agreement. And do you believe that Mrs May’s speech has increased the chances of a good deal or reduced them?
Let us know your views.
