Michel Barnier warns there is ‘a Farage in every country’

The EU Brexit negotiator said he would fulfil his Brexit mission ‘to the end.’

HELSINKI — Michel Barnier warned today that there is “now a Farage in every country” seeking to “demolish Europe.”

The EU’s chief Brexit negotiator was speaking at the European People’s Party congress in Helsinki — the annual gathering of the center-right political grouping which is the largest in the European Parliament.

Referring to the Parliament election in May next year he said: “This election will be tougher than ever before. We will have to fight against those who want to demolish Europe. With their fear. Their populist deceit. And their attacks against the European project.”

Barnier than added a jibe at the former UKIP leader and member of the European Parliament. “There is now a [Nigel] Farage in every country.”

His brief speech covered a range of topics including migration, climate change and technology, but it said nothing of substance about the Brexit talks, which are currently inching forward on the vexed question of how to avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland.

Barnier concluded: “I shall fulfil my Brexit mission to the end. It is my responsibility.”


Read this next: White House pulls pass from CNN reporter

Why a sack full of Russian cash won’t change UK Brexit debate

Leave voters have proved highly resistant to a change of heart on Brexit.

CCTV footage emerges of Vladimir Putin entering the offices of unofficial Brexit campaign Leave.EU weeks before the 2016 referendum and handing over a sack of cash to figurehead Nigel Farage and main funder Arron Banks.

Voters erupt in shock that they were duped and express indignation that a referendum on the most important British political decision in a generation was bought by a foreign power.

Except they didn’t. And they wouldn’t.

This fantasy scenario (we will come back to Leave.EU later) may be the stuff of dreams for Remainers desperate to prompt a “People’s Vote” to reverse Brexit. But it is doubtful that even such a clear and blatant picture of referendum tampering would convince many in Britain that they need a Brexit do-over — beyond those who are already convinced.

Brexit campaign donor and businessman Arron Banks (R) and Leave.EU campaigner Andy Wigmore arrive at Portcullis House to give evidence to parliament’s digital, culture, media and sport committee in London on June 12, 2018 | Daniel Leal Olivas/AFP via Getty Images

That might seem odd if you’re sitting in Brussels, Berlin, Bucharest or Barcelona. After all, viewed from afar, the spectacle of the British government and its well-regarded civil service almost completely taken up with the complexity of leaving the EU looks like a whole lot of hassle.

In the negotiations themselves, the Brexiteers have had to roll with punch after punch — on the Brexit bill; on the cutoff date for citizens’ rights; on the transition period and much else. And at the end of it all is the prospect of a large dose of economic pain. According to the U.K. government’s own figures, an 8 percent hit to growth in the worst-case scenario.

Then there’s the cost.

By March next year, the U.K. government will have spent an estimated £2 billion on Brexit-related preparations, according to the Institute for Government. And the hit to the economy caused by uncertainty is already far bigger — the Center for European Reform think tank estimates it at £500 million a week.

So Brexit ought to be looking a lot less attractive, right?

The truth is that most Leave voters either don’t believe this “bad news” — prominent Brexiteer politicians and Leave-supporting newspapers often dismiss it as a Project Fear rerun — or they believe that it is a price worth paying to get to the end goal of a clean break with the European Union.

Even if Leave.EU did benefit from foreign funds it would make not a jot of difference to Britain’s divided Brexit politics.

While polls have shifted by a few percentage points toward Remain, there has not been the mass outpouring of “Bregret” that many Remainers assumed would follow.

In a poll for POLITICO conducted by Hanbury Strategy, when respondents were given a choice between the economic disruption of a no-deal Brexit and remaining in the EU, 46.5 percent chose the former.

And supplementary questions demonstrate how the core messages of the Leave campaign still have a strong resonance with voters. When given a choice between controling immigration or maintaining close economic ties with Europe, immigration won by 60 to 40 percent.

On “more flexibility” for the U.K. to set its own laws versus “more investment and trade” with the EU, the former had 65 percent support. And the power to strike trade deals came out on top against a hard border in Northern Ireland — by 59 percent to 41 percent. Despite the political turmoil, leaving at almost any short-term cost still has strong appeal. For many Leavers, Brexit is about self-determination, sovereignty, freedom from foreign interference and the power to control Britain’s borders.

That brings us back to Leave.EU, the unofficial Brexit campaign that promoted a strong anti-immigration message in the run-up to the June 2016 vote. In May it was fined £70,000 by the Electoral Commission for breaches of electoral law (Remain campaigners also received fines totaling £19,250 and the official Vote Leave campaign was fined £61,000 in July for breaching spending rules).

Demonstrator with an effigy of US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on the March For The Many on September 23, 2018 in Liverpool, England | Jeff J. Mitchell/Getty Images

But the news has got worse for Leave.EU. On Tuesday, it was hit — along with co-founder Banks’s insurance firm — with a further penalty of £135,000 for breaches of data laws.

Imposing the fine, the Information Commissioner said:  “We may never know whether individuals were unknowingly influenced to vote a certain way … But we do know that personal privacy rights have been compromised by a number of players.”

Even more serious for Banks is his referral by the Electoral Commission to the National Crime Agency for a criminal investigation. The Commission said it has “reasonable grounds to suspect” that Banks was not the true source of £8 million in loans made to Better for the Country, the organization that ran Leave.EU.

Banks strongly denies any wrongdoing and told the BBC’s Andrew Marr on Sunday that the source of the funding was a U.K. registered company called Rock Services. He said categorically that none of the money had come from Russia.

In all likelihood, the result of the NCA investigation will not be known until after Brexit day in March next year. But even if it came earlier, and showed Leave.EU did benefit from foreign funds — along with that conclusive CCTV evidence — it would make not a jot of difference to Britain’s divided Brexit politics.

Leave voters have been castigated by Remainers since the day of the referendum for being too stupid or ill-informed to know what they were voting for.

About the most charitable interpretation their opponents can muster is that they were duped by “lies” from Brexiteer politicians. If that hasn’t encouraged a change of heart then the argument that Putin helped to pull the wool over their eyes with the aid of a loud-mouth insurance salesman is unlikely to cut much ice either.


Read this next: Road to victory for European conservatives’ chosen one

UK chancellor: Brexit bill non-payment would damage UK’s reputation

Philip Hammond told MPs that it was not ‘plausible or credible’ for the UK to assert it had not financial obligations in no-deal scenario.

LONDON — Withholding payments to the European Union in the event of a no-deal Brexit would damage the U.K.’s reputation as a reliable partner in future trade deals, U.K. Chancellor Philip Hammond said Monday.

Some Conservative backbenchers want Prime Minister Theresa May to make the U.K.’s payment of a divorce bill of around £39 billion conditional on a generous trade deal, seeing the saving as an upside to a no-deal Brexit.

But citing advice from the Treasury’s “legal counsel,” Hammond said the proposed financial settlement agreed with Brussels was “making good” on commitments entered into with the U.K.’s “acquiescence” while a member of the European Union, and would be “due in any case.”

While the U.K. would would not necessarily be prepared to agree the same formula in the context of no deal, it would not be “plausible or credible” for the U.K. to assert it had no obligations, he said.

“If we were to do so, we would effectively rule ourselves out as being regarded as reliable partners in future international deals of any kind, including trade deals. That wouldn’t be something that I would recommend at all,” he said.


Read this next: ‘King of the world’: Trump to ditch DC for Paris days after midterms