What do you think?
Rate this book
My Secret Brexit Diary: A Glorious Illusion
In June 2016, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. As the EU’s chief negotiator, for four years Michel Barnier had a seat at the table as the two sides thrashed out what ‘Brexit’ would really mean. The result would change Britain and Europe forever. During the 1600 days of complex and often acrimonious negotiations, Michel Barnier kept a secret diary. He recorded his private hopes and fears, and gave a blow-by-blow account as the negotiations oscillated between consensus and disagreement, transparency and lies. From Brussels to London, from Dublin to Nicosia, Michel Barnier’s secret diary lifts the lid on what really happened behind the scenes of one of the most high-stakes negotiations in modern history. The result is a unique testimony from the ultimate insider on the hidden world of Brexit and those who made it happen.
480 pages, Paperback
First published May 6, 2021
80 people are currently reading
1289 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews
June 15, 2021
Michel Barnier was lead negotiator in the Brexit process from 2016 to 2018. Here he promises a secret diary. Although the book is organised like a journal, it has clearly had quite some polishing, and M Barnier has probably had to tone down many of his instant reactions to the way things unfolded. The title, "The Grand Illusion" is taken from an essay by Norman Angell in which he showed that in a war everybody loses. Although he doesn't think the discussions were a war, Barnier sees Brexit as a lose-lose negotiation where both the EU and the UK come off worse than they were before.
By opting for the journal structure, Barnier gives us a very real feeling for how the process evolved, who was saying what and when, and how the moods shifted over time. On the other hand, a journal structure doesn’t allow him to organise the book into the key themes, and the reader needs to build those up based on the daily and weekly events described. Some of those themes are quite extraordinary.
Perhaps the most important point is that the Brexiters driving the UK negotiations are not motivated by economics – economically Brexit makes little sense and the UK negotiators seem to be quite aware of that. Instead they are driven by a political or philosophical desire to renounce all shared sovereignty and become sole masters of the UK. And once that basic fact is understood it becomes easier to see how Brexit shifted from the soft Brexit described in the referendum campaign into the very hard Brexit we ended up with. If you will not work multilaterally or cooperate with other countries, you are destined to become isolated and take the consequences.
A striking conclusion to be drawn from the accounts of meetings is that the years of EU membership have meant that more and more expertise is to be found in Brussels, and less and less in London. When the negotiations start up there are often topics where the UK has no experts to send, while the EU has them in numbers. You can’t reverse EU membership overnight.
His comments on Nigel Farage present a man who is charming in private and less so in public. Farage tells him the Brexit negotiations are probably only a temporary thing because Brexit will lead to the whole of the EU project collapsing. The rest of the book seems to show that far from collapsing, the EU became more united, at least in its approach to Brexit.
Barnier describes how the EU negotiation team often felt that they were waiting for the UK to finish negotiating with itself, seeing fresh dramas and resignations happening in London more or less monthly. They found Theresa May firm but principled – ready to find a deal and to fight for it in Westminster. Nevertheless, Barnier was amazed at her red lines set out soon after she took office, in Autumn 2016, where she stated categorically that the UK was ruling out continued free movement, EU contributions, or the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. As he saw it, this limited her options in the negotiations. And while he has sympathy for May, Barnier reserves his greatest praise for Olly Robbins, her chief negotiator, seeing him as competent, principled, hard-working, and intelligent. None of the other UK team members comes even close to this level of praise.
Take, for example, David Davis. Barnier is clearly working hard not to be rude about the former Minister for Exiting the EU, who he says avoids meetings as often as possible to as to keep out of trouble and preserve his political capital.
But once May and her team depart and are replaced by Boris Johnson’s squad, the alarm bells really start to ring – Johnson himself comes across as very charismatic, utterly unprincipled, wiling to drop commitments at any moment. Barnier describes the toxic combination of Johnson and Dominic Cummings, who works behind the scenes to push for the hardest Brexit possible without a care for the consequences.
He finds Dominc Raab to be almost messianic in this approach – doggedly pushing the hardest of Brexits, taking inflammatory positions, provoking and accusing. He’s very scathing about Raab’s speech to a technology conference – the one where Raab says “I hadn’t quite understood how reliant the UK is on trade with the EU going through Dover and Calais”. Barnier drily comments, “I am not sure the delegates will have left the conference feeling reassured”.
Other negotiators are competent but devious. David Frost and Steven Barclay (remember him?) play various games that Barnier seems to understand. For example, they try to run down the clock so that the EU is forced to agree to things simply to get a deal. They try to bypass Barnier throughout the process, either by working on individual heads of state in the 27 EU members, or by working through the complex organisation that is the EU. They clearly see Ursula von der Leyen, the newly appointed President of the European Commission, as the weak link who might let them bypass Barnier. He describes one particularly tetchy meeting with David Frost who turns up forty minutes late and smugly announces that “from now on the negotiations are taking place between Ursula and Boris”. Barnier says he quickly set that one straight and kept himself in charge.
Another British tactic that Barnier is constantly fighting is to try to negotiate bits and pieces and so in effect break up the deal. It sounds like a good idea – build the whole deal by working on its parts, until you realise that what they are really trying to do is to obtain concessions from the EU on some areas and go to no deal on others.
But Barnier isn’t always kind with the EU characters: apart from the implied naiveté of Ursula von der Leyen, he also has his problems with Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, who is generally an excellent colleague supporting the process, but is prone to indiscretions on Twitter. And Martin Selmayr, the Commission secretary general, comes across as a someone who loves drama and likes to create it when he cannot find it.
Of course, this is Barnier’s point of view, and maybe one day we will see accounts from the UK team, although nobody on the UK side was so deeply involved at this level and throughout the entire process. He presents himself in a very good light, as is his right in his own book – he is always calm, principled, expert at negotiation, full of praise for his team, respectful of the UK’s right to take the decision to leave the EU, masterful at keeping the EU united towards Brexit. He is patient even when the UK press is accusing him of giving Boris Johnson COVID, or when Johnson and Raab are outrageously misrepresenting things to incite their supporters.
Barnier sets out two different visions of international relations – the Brexiters’ view of sovereignty that leads inexorably to isolationism, and the EU view of sovereignty that aims for strength through unity – economic strength, security, and above all peace. It’s a possibly unfashionable argument for multilateralism.
And by the way it is perhaps an early step in Barnier’s plan to mount a campaign to become French President on a Centre-right platform.
By opting for the journal structure, Barnier gives us a very real feeling for how the process evolved, who was saying what and when, and how the moods shifted over time. On the other hand, a journal structure doesn’t allow him to organise the book into the key themes, and the reader needs to build those up based on the daily and weekly events described. Some of those themes are quite extraordinary.
Perhaps the most important point is that the Brexiters driving the UK negotiations are not motivated by economics – economically Brexit makes little sense and the UK negotiators seem to be quite aware of that. Instead they are driven by a political or philosophical desire to renounce all shared sovereignty and become sole masters of the UK. And once that basic fact is understood it becomes easier to see how Brexit shifted from the soft Brexit described in the referendum campaign into the very hard Brexit we ended up with. If you will not work multilaterally or cooperate with other countries, you are destined to become isolated and take the consequences.
A striking conclusion to be drawn from the accounts of meetings is that the years of EU membership have meant that more and more expertise is to be found in Brussels, and less and less in London. When the negotiations start up there are often topics where the UK has no experts to send, while the EU has them in numbers. You can’t reverse EU membership overnight.
His comments on Nigel Farage present a man who is charming in private and less so in public. Farage tells him the Brexit negotiations are probably only a temporary thing because Brexit will lead to the whole of the EU project collapsing. The rest of the book seems to show that far from collapsing, the EU became more united, at least in its approach to Brexit.
Barnier describes how the EU negotiation team often felt that they were waiting for the UK to finish negotiating with itself, seeing fresh dramas and resignations happening in London more or less monthly. They found Theresa May firm but principled – ready to find a deal and to fight for it in Westminster. Nevertheless, Barnier was amazed at her red lines set out soon after she took office, in Autumn 2016, where she stated categorically that the UK was ruling out continued free movement, EU contributions, or the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. As he saw it, this limited her options in the negotiations. And while he has sympathy for May, Barnier reserves his greatest praise for Olly Robbins, her chief negotiator, seeing him as competent, principled, hard-working, and intelligent. None of the other UK team members comes even close to this level of praise.
Take, for example, David Davis. Barnier is clearly working hard not to be rude about the former Minister for Exiting the EU, who he says avoids meetings as often as possible to as to keep out of trouble and preserve his political capital.
But once May and her team depart and are replaced by Boris Johnson’s squad, the alarm bells really start to ring – Johnson himself comes across as very charismatic, utterly unprincipled, wiling to drop commitments at any moment. Barnier describes the toxic combination of Johnson and Dominic Cummings, who works behind the scenes to push for the hardest Brexit possible without a care for the consequences.
He finds Dominc Raab to be almost messianic in this approach – doggedly pushing the hardest of Brexits, taking inflammatory positions, provoking and accusing. He’s very scathing about Raab’s speech to a technology conference – the one where Raab says “I hadn’t quite understood how reliant the UK is on trade with the EU going through Dover and Calais”. Barnier drily comments, “I am not sure the delegates will have left the conference feeling reassured”.
Other negotiators are competent but devious. David Frost and Steven Barclay (remember him?) play various games that Barnier seems to understand. For example, they try to run down the clock so that the EU is forced to agree to things simply to get a deal. They try to bypass Barnier throughout the process, either by working on individual heads of state in the 27 EU members, or by working through the complex organisation that is the EU. They clearly see Ursula von der Leyen, the newly appointed President of the European Commission, as the weak link who might let them bypass Barnier. He describes one particularly tetchy meeting with David Frost who turns up forty minutes late and smugly announces that “from now on the negotiations are taking place between Ursula and Boris”. Barnier says he quickly set that one straight and kept himself in charge.
Another British tactic that Barnier is constantly fighting is to try to negotiate bits and pieces and so in effect break up the deal. It sounds like a good idea – build the whole deal by working on its parts, until you realise that what they are really trying to do is to obtain concessions from the EU on some areas and go to no deal on others.
But Barnier isn’t always kind with the EU characters: apart from the implied naiveté of Ursula von der Leyen, he also has his problems with Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, who is generally an excellent colleague supporting the process, but is prone to indiscretions on Twitter. And Martin Selmayr, the Commission secretary general, comes across as a someone who loves drama and likes to create it when he cannot find it.
Of course, this is Barnier’s point of view, and maybe one day we will see accounts from the UK team, although nobody on the UK side was so deeply involved at this level and throughout the entire process. He presents himself in a very good light, as is his right in his own book – he is always calm, principled, expert at negotiation, full of praise for his team, respectful of the UK’s right to take the decision to leave the EU, masterful at keeping the EU united towards Brexit. He is patient even when the UK press is accusing him of giving Boris Johnson COVID, or when Johnson and Raab are outrageously misrepresenting things to incite their supporters.
Barnier sets out two different visions of international relations – the Brexiters’ view of sovereignty that leads inexorably to isolationism, and the EU view of sovereignty that aims for strength through unity – economic strength, security, and above all peace. It’s a possibly unfashionable argument for multilateralism.
And by the way it is perhaps an early step in Barnier’s plan to mount a campaign to become French President on a Centre-right platform.
May 29, 2021
Educational. Concrete illustration of the inner workings of European institutions. Reassuring feeling that competent Europeans are fulfilling their duties in Brussels for the good of EU citizens. As for Brexit, Donald Tusk said it all: I've been wondering what that special place in hell looks like, for those who promoted #Brexit, without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely.
June 5, 2021
Called after the immortal film of Jean Renoir (1937) set in a POW camp in the 14-18 war - about the futility of war, amongst other things.
Michel Barnier’s journal of the Brexit negotiations (2016-20) confirms what I suspected strongly at the time and fleshes out the events behind the headlines - UK tabloids are so predictable!
He was the chief negotiator and assembled a team of hardworking and intelligent staff to work with him on what was necessarily a more arduous task for the EU, taking into consideration the interests and opinions of 27 nations.
I’m not too surprised that when the UK team met the EU team in July 17, they arrived without any files or evidence of having given much thought to the process.
That set the tone for what followed. This of course intensified when Boris Johnson became PM! Whether disingenuous all of the time or just some of it, discussion became as woolly and evasive as he is.
Barnier points out with justice that those who pushed for the Brexit referendum didn’t have the least clue what it would mean….
Quelle pagaille!
Michel Barnier’s journal of the Brexit negotiations (2016-20) confirms what I suspected strongly at the time and fleshes out the events behind the headlines - UK tabloids are so predictable!
He was the chief negotiator and assembled a team of hardworking and intelligent staff to work with him on what was necessarily a more arduous task for the EU, taking into consideration the interests and opinions of 27 nations.
I’m not too surprised that when the UK team met the EU team in July 17, they arrived without any files or evidence of having given much thought to the process.
That set the tone for what followed. This of course intensified when Boris Johnson became PM! Whether disingenuous all of the time or just some of it, discussion became as woolly and evasive as he is.
Barnier points out with justice that those who pushed for the Brexit referendum didn’t have the least clue what it would mean….
Quelle pagaille!
December 28, 2021
I got more out of this book than I expected.
Yes, this dairy is primarily a detailed behind-the-scenes personal view of the EU’s negotiations with the UK. It’s comprehensive and the comparisons between the two side’s tactics and strategies is engaging. And yes, Barnier does not suffer fools gladly and is suitably scathing on those who underperform or obstruct the process — on both the EU side as well as the UK side. He deploys an understated and haughty Gallic tone, often preferring to subtly undermine characters in his narrative rather than criticism them overtly.
If this book had only just delivered on all of that it would still have been an informative and entertaining read.
However, in addition to that core of his book, the way that Barnier writes embodies a certain approach to what it means to think and act like a European. His essential European-ness guides his thinking in a most fundamental way. Observing that seam running right through this book is fascinating and rewarding.
While we in Ireland are in the main steadfast supporters of the EU project, we are also generally less engaged than we could be. In my experience, Irish people with some interest in politics could tell you more about US politics than those of the EU. They could probably name, say, the Speaker of the US House and the Republican Minority Leader more readily than the current President of the European Council. Being an English-speaking island nation that primarily consumes US and UK media is a significant factor behind this. Amongst our population any understanding of the workings of the EU (which we’ve been a member of for nearly fifty years) is rudimentary at best. Some of that is just me education and informing oneself of the relevant facts. But more fundamental is having a core sense of being a European as much as being of a particular nationality. Here in Ireland we could all work a lot harder at achieving that mindset and living it.
This book has already made me feel more European. It has indicated and suggested ways that I could look at issues and think about them through a European mindset. And I was not expecting that.
Yes, this dairy is primarily a detailed behind-the-scenes personal view of the EU’s negotiations with the UK. It’s comprehensive and the comparisons between the two side’s tactics and strategies is engaging. And yes, Barnier does not suffer fools gladly and is suitably scathing on those who underperform or obstruct the process — on both the EU side as well as the UK side. He deploys an understated and haughty Gallic tone, often preferring to subtly undermine characters in his narrative rather than criticism them overtly.
If this book had only just delivered on all of that it would still have been an informative and entertaining read.
However, in addition to that core of his book, the way that Barnier writes embodies a certain approach to what it means to think and act like a European. His essential European-ness guides his thinking in a most fundamental way. Observing that seam running right through this book is fascinating and rewarding.
While we in Ireland are in the main steadfast supporters of the EU project, we are also generally less engaged than we could be. In my experience, Irish people with some interest in politics could tell you more about US politics than those of the EU. They could probably name, say, the Speaker of the US House and the Republican Minority Leader more readily than the current President of the European Council. Being an English-speaking island nation that primarily consumes US and UK media is a significant factor behind this. Amongst our population any understanding of the workings of the EU (which we’ve been a member of for nearly fifty years) is rudimentary at best. Some of that is just me education and informing oneself of the relevant facts. But more fundamental is having a core sense of being a European as much as being of a particular nationality. Here in Ireland we could all work a lot harder at achieving that mindset and living it.
This book has already made me feel more European. It has indicated and suggested ways that I could look at issues and think about them through a European mindset. And I was not expecting that.
November 24, 2021
A book that just goes through the detailed timelines of the Brexit negotiation. Do not expect some revelations about the backstage negotiations nor a deep political analysis.
May 16, 2024
I presume that the thoughts of the author will paint a rosy picture of his and the EUs version of the negotiations, but even if that is true, the book does not show our efforts in a very good light.
Getting rid of the nots so good bits, the book, as the transcript of a diary, is a bit dry and I got a bit lost in the structure of the EU and the personnel involved.
However, it highlights the difference between the two camps. Michel and his team make great efforts to ensure that all 27 countries reach agreement on the negotiating positions, and even as the personnel change, the strategy and tactics remain the same. The British team reflected the state of the politics of the nation with Brexit splitting the nation and to a certain extent the Tory party. Why a simple majority was required for such a momentous decision escapes me.
The lead up to the vote and the negotiations spanned the very different PMs and versions of the Tory party as they veered to the right. There appeared to be no effort made by the UK negotiating team to forge a coherent strategy, being at various times behest to the ERG and DUP. Mrs May tried her best to take a middle path and showed some understanding of the complexity of the decisions required, but eventually had to give up.
Then there followed the Boris Johnson years, with Dominic Cummins, the chaos man pulling the strings, trying to force the EU to grant concessions.
Getting rid of the nots so good bits, the book, as the transcript of a diary, is a bit dry and I got a bit lost in the structure of the EU and the personnel involved.
However, it highlights the difference between the two camps. Michel and his team make great efforts to ensure that all 27 countries reach agreement on the negotiating positions, and even as the personnel change, the strategy and tactics remain the same. The British team reflected the state of the politics of the nation with Brexit splitting the nation and to a certain extent the Tory party. Why a simple majority was required for such a momentous decision escapes me.
The lead up to the vote and the negotiations spanned the very different PMs and versions of the Tory party as they veered to the right. There appeared to be no effort made by the UK negotiating team to forge a coherent strategy, being at various times behest to the ERG and DUP. Mrs May tried her best to take a middle path and showed some understanding of the complexity of the decisions required, but eventually had to give up.
Then there followed the Boris Johnson years, with Dominic Cummins, the chaos man pulling the strings, trying to force the EU to grant concessions.
January 15, 2022
Great read that grabs attention and holds it
What a fantastic read, and, while we all know how the story ends, it still makes for a fine read! It is factual but not boring. One has a feeling for the degree of commitment and sheer hard work it took to arrive at the end point. No doubt there is a.little who showing in places, perhaps it is warranted? After it all, I still don't understand why Brexit rather than some renegotiation by the Brits, but that is now a "what if" scenario, but M. Barnier tells a great story and is generous in his recognition of all involved, high and low, British and European.
What a fantastic read, and, while we all know how the story ends, it still makes for a fine read! It is factual but not boring. One has a feeling for the degree of commitment and sheer hard work it took to arrive at the end point. No doubt there is a.little who showing in places, perhaps it is warranted? After it all, I still don't understand why Brexit rather than some renegotiation by the Brits, but that is now a "what if" scenario, but M. Barnier tells a great story and is generous in his recognition of all involved, high and low, British and European.
January 3, 2022
I knew how it ended and I was completely engrossed reading Michel Barnier's firsthand account of Brexit negotiations
December 20, 2021
Great insight in the Brexit negotiations and the life of a top EU-official.
Learned a great deal about Brexit, negotiations, politics and economics. Well written, on the other hand I did feel that Barnier often wrote things down to seem important, for example by namedropping. That did not take away from making the book worthwile to read though.
Can overall recommended if interested in Brexit and politics.
Learned a great deal about Brexit, negotiations, politics and economics. Well written, on the other hand I did feel that Barnier often wrote things down to seem important, for example by namedropping. That did not take away from making the book worthwile to read though.
Can overall recommended if interested in Brexit and politics.
May 25, 2021
a long illusion
A rather lengthy story of all the ups and downs leading to an agreement that became necessary as a consequence of some political folly. Mr. Barnier is a politician who safeguards his future by always mentioning a positive description of european politicians or civil servants. He only recognizes negative features with the representatives of the “perfide Albion”. Interesting to learn how the European countries held together, a rare example of European unity. Also interesting to note how so much has been focused on preserving the Irish peace. There are also a couple of examples on negotiation tactics to be learned.
A rather lengthy story of all the ups and downs leading to an agreement that became necessary as a consequence of some political folly. Mr. Barnier is a politician who safeguards his future by always mentioning a positive description of european politicians or civil servants. He only recognizes negative features with the representatives of the “perfide Albion”. Interesting to learn how the European countries held together, a rare example of European unity. Also interesting to note how so much has been focused on preserving the Irish peace. There are also a couple of examples on negotiation tactics to be learned.
November 3, 2021
I pre-ordered the English language version and it is only my lack of time that has stopped me reaching the end. So far Barnier has quickly achieved hero status in my eyes and heart and I think it unlikely that my views will change when I've read all he has to say here.
August 3, 2021
Interesting to know the insights of the Brexit negotiations. Shows very well what the UK has become - minor player in the world politics, led by petty, corrupt liars.
October 24, 2024
In this review I say a few things about the book and rant a lot about my thoughts on Brexit in general, some of which is informed by this book, but where judgment is offered it is typically my own. Among the strengths of this book is that mr. Barnier is ever the gentleman negotiator, amicable and confident, ever refraining from phrasing judgment against people. Expect facts and insights from him. My own experience of Brexit was emotionally charged due to the fact that I could not understand, and had much difficulty to accept, the challenge of the Brits against the EU and, in my view, against themselves. I feel it were odd to read this book, nor comment on it, without situating it in my experience of, and ideas Brexit. It would be too dry, and also outside of my league. However, in honour of mr. Barnier, as well as to help you as a reader, I will first (mostly) discuss the book and then rant on.
I cannot vouch for the truth value of the story in ‘My Secret Brexit Diary’ since I am no historian, nor was I similarly close to people involved in the Brexit negotiations as mr. Barnier was. I also do not offer critique on what is not included in the book. Clearly, it is his take on events as he experienced them, and I don’t consider it his task to include all the alternative views, as this is not an academic article but a diary of sorts.
When Michel Barnier wrote ‘My Secret Brexit diary’ he was probably already aiming at the office of the French president. He dropped out of the race a bit to soon to my liking, but he now has another leading role as prime minister, the first to lead a coalition. He will do finely. Before I move on to the good points of the book, I must get one irksome point out of the way.
The title - it is stupid
As soon as the book was announced, I decided to reserve a copy. However, had I not been primed for this book through reviews in my newspaper, and if I had not already developed an admiration for the author, I would have not bought the book, due to its stupid, stupid title. ‘My Secret Brexit diary’ is a childish title on par with ‘my first little pony’. Dear Michel, dear Polity Press, how is this diary secret when you are printing thousands and thousands of copies of it? I feel stupid just looking at the title right now. The French title (the glorious illusion) has much more gravitas to it, and I cannot fathom the decision to rename the English version to what it is. OK. Whew. Now that this is off my heart, lets move on to the actual book.
Format of the book
This book calls itself a diary. Considering the chronological flow of events and the first person narrative, that is correct. It is however not a personal diary as the title might suggest, nor does it divulge any sort of secret. I expect it to have been considerably edited and augmented, and this is not a bad thing. There are many cases, especially at the start of the book, where institutions and persons are introduced in a way I would not expect to write if I were to write a diary. However, to properly understand events and the significance of certain institutions or people in them, it helps to know who and what they are. Since the book explores a personal style where Michel takes you along through his experiences, these explanations occasionally feel a little pedantic. Generally however I found them to be very informative and helpful and would not do without.
Some thoughts on content
I can only comment on this book in personal terms. During the Brexit process, I intensively followed the news and developments in negotiations as well as analyses on the behaviour of the people and politicians. But it was a lot of information, generally repetitive and incomplete at the time. I found that ‘My Secret Brexit Diary’ revealed to me events, or sometimes dimensions of events that I had not noticed before. In general it helped to recap many of the events and put them in perspective.
Overall, after reading the book, I am impressed by the perseverance of unity within the EU leadership during the entire negotiations. I think at the time, this was certainly not the expected outcome. The UK really banked on finding ‘leverage’ with individual EU members to wedge them apart, hoping to be cleverly (deviously?) divisive. But from very early on, in fact, way before British politicians understood ‘the fight was on’, the remaining EU leaders latched on to the conviction that anything but unity would be disastrous. Mr. Barnier will not have been the sole influence here, but he makes it clear that he devoted a considerable amount of energy to visit and convince people in the various EU capitals to stick together, and to be represented as a unit by a chief negotiator - which would be mr. Barnier soon after. I believe this consolidation has mattered tremendously for the EU side of the Brexit chapter. Imagine a world where France would try to cut a different deal than Germany.
It is perhaps a little unfair to say, considering the different situations of the UK on one side and the EU on the other, but it is undeniable that the EU side appeared way more professional. Clearly, it helped that the EU had a continuous and rules based stance, whereas the UK suffered from multiple government changes and chaotic infighting. So in this book we see a calm, confident and prepared EU negotiator versus a UK side trying to keep the appearance of having a superior hand of cards - but, in the poker analogy, never really aware how many cards are in the game, what the stakes are, and in fact not even secure who on their own side is actually holding which cards. The British were simply too much at odds with themselves to be able to devise a strategy they could commit themselves to, and were therefore never in a position to negotiate as hard as they promised to their voters. Now, depicting your own situation, as mr. Barnier does here, always runs the risk of a biased perspective. So we have to read with some caution. However, I did not feel the narrative to be too self-aggrandizing. Mr. Barnier takes a lot of time to put his staff in the limelight (I have a separate first-hand source telling me that the man will take a lot of time at meetings to first shake hands and small talk with everyone, and that it does make them feel ‘on board’.
Verdict
This book was very worthwhile to read and showcases something that the European Union happens to do very well: managing complex multilateral discussions and harnessing its bureaucratic strengths. Generally the EU is bashed for being too bureaucratic, but during Brexit the Brussels machinery really worked wonders. Mr. Barnier shows how that happened, and gave me the expectation that this was no fluke. Moreover, I found the book was able to rekindle the excitement I once felt about the negotiation period. The negotiations were complex in many ways, the stakes were high (re-igniting civil war in north-Ireland was the biggest fear). In the end, given all constraints a solution was eventually found, but it was a real thriller to the people involved in the negotiations. In ‘My Secret Brexit Diary’ you are introduced and guided through this adventure by president material ;). The story gives a unique insight in the workings of high level European politics. I recommend.
Some further musings
At the time of writing this, the Brexit referendum has been eight years since. It seems like an eternity. Having been (and still) quite pro-Europe and to a lesser extent pro-EU, I was shocked at the idea that a core member of the EU would propose to self-isolate from Europe, much less actually decide to actually withdraw. Many arguments have been made about how representative and informed the referendum actually was, but the fact is that it culminated, however tumultuous and chaotically, in an actual Brexit.
Brexit has been a dramatic and shocking experience for many. It has been so especially in the UK where it was inescapable and drove many people apart. Yet for people outside the UK (Netherlands here) such as me who consider the accomplishments of the EU - despite all its flaws - to be a meritorious accomplishment, Brexit was a shock. It is probably naive and sentimental on my side, but Brexit has felt to me as probably an unnecessary family fall-out. And if it was necessary then - wow, was it ever messily executed. The whole Brexit episode has played out like the unplanned teenage pregnancy of your drunk schizophrenic cousin who feels both in charge and proud of the situation, as well as desperately confused and panicked. You feel for her, but could the runt not at least have a plan how to raise and feed the kid, and, like, manage on your own? (Talking to you here, David Cameron). As a family member I also felt ashamed, disheartened, discouraged and occasionally infuriated. How could this happen? How did the grown-ups not prevent this?
So Brexit was an eye-opener for me what politicians can do or fail to do. Nowadays, I go for months not realizing Brexit ever happened, but during four years, almost an eternity, it was ever in the news. And I remember my excitement about turns and events, trying to figure out how things would pan out now, amid all the noise of the opinion pages. It mattered to me then, so it felt worthwhile to revisit the tragedy from a composed perspective. I followed the news on Brexit daily, hoping for a favourable outcome, as well as trying to make sense of what forces had led to the disaster of Brexit. Moreover, the negotiations on the terms of the divorce were very interesting to me. So when it was announced that the chief negotiator on the EU side was publishing his memoirs, I could not resist. And was not disappointed.
As an aside, I believe that had the financial crisis from 2008 not been so disrupting and terrifying, some members might not have been as scared of a fracturing EU. But in 2016 the memories of the financial stress on especially the southern members would have been strong, many leaders serving then were still around and in power, and they’d rather keep political chaos far away, thank you very much. If Brexit was supposed to have a chance, the British ought to have waited at least for Angela Merkel to wave off.
Many people have tried to point out a winner. Generally speaking, the opinions I am aware of break down amongst others in battles on moral, economic, political and diplomatic grounds. Personally however, I am less interested in declaring a winner here: As far as I’m concerned there are only losers from the mess that is called Brexit.
Compare this to a marriage where one partner files for a divorce. If you take divorce as a given, you might point out which partner is better off after the marriage has ended. But consider that marriage counseling saved that marriage? It is likely that both partners (and especially their children) would be better off in a saved marriage than in divorce.
In the same way, I feel that both EU and UK would have fared better together than apart (however glad I am that creepy grandpa Farrage has left the benches of the EU parliament…)
There is no winner here. I hope the UK returns. But I feel that the Brexit trauma sits so deep, that the UK will only muster the popular will to return if they can do so as victors. It doesn’t have to be a real victory (Many of the arguments to leave the EU were bogus, so it stands to reason that arguments to rejoin can be based on imagination, too). Perhaps winning the European soccer championships three times in a row might already do the trick? Some joint military successes? At any rate the spiralling loser-mentality at the heart of Brexit will have to be resolved. The Brits are to proud to return as the proverbial lost son, they want to be brought in with all the reverence as the liberators of WWII ravaged Europe once had, and which they have come to expect as a matter of course. It won’t be easy, but I have to hope.
Sadly for some Brits, EU members were more interested in reducing the costs of Brexit for the EU rather than finding the best solution for the UK (who’d have thunk?), and the reason for that is that accommodation the UK would have meant renegotiating much of the EU’s inner workings from the ground up. Which prospers such a nightmarishly political undertaking that no one would consider it. Imagine you have choose between either a routine tonsil removal versus an experimental open heart surgery by a team of accountants, some of which one is most likely not a monkeys….. in the same way the lesser evil was clearly an EU without the UK. The tragic side of the story is, many on the UK could not imagine how the EU could do without them. There was an attitude of a man taking a divorce so he can sleep with other women, wants to stop contributing to the household, but somehow still expects to live in the house and sleep in the bed of his ex-wife, on account of being so irreplaceable. (This is my rant, mr. Barnier says nor implies anything like this in any way). Now that the war against Europe in Ukraine is grinding on, the EU would have prized the UK military capacity more than it did during the Brexit era, so again, Brexiteers may have mistimed the divorce…
I cannot vouch for the truth value of the story in ‘My Secret Brexit Diary’ since I am no historian, nor was I similarly close to people involved in the Brexit negotiations as mr. Barnier was. I also do not offer critique on what is not included in the book. Clearly, it is his take on events as he experienced them, and I don’t consider it his task to include all the alternative views, as this is not an academic article but a diary of sorts.
When Michel Barnier wrote ‘My Secret Brexit diary’ he was probably already aiming at the office of the French president. He dropped out of the race a bit to soon to my liking, but he now has another leading role as prime minister, the first to lead a coalition. He will do finely. Before I move on to the good points of the book, I must get one irksome point out of the way.
The title - it is stupid
As soon as the book was announced, I decided to reserve a copy. However, had I not been primed for this book through reviews in my newspaper, and if I had not already developed an admiration for the author, I would have not bought the book, due to its stupid, stupid title. ‘My Secret Brexit diary’ is a childish title on par with ‘my first little pony’. Dear Michel, dear Polity Press, how is this diary secret when you are printing thousands and thousands of copies of it? I feel stupid just looking at the title right now. The French title (the glorious illusion) has much more gravitas to it, and I cannot fathom the decision to rename the English version to what it is. OK. Whew. Now that this is off my heart, lets move on to the actual book.
Format of the book
This book calls itself a diary. Considering the chronological flow of events and the first person narrative, that is correct. It is however not a personal diary as the title might suggest, nor does it divulge any sort of secret. I expect it to have been considerably edited and augmented, and this is not a bad thing. There are many cases, especially at the start of the book, where institutions and persons are introduced in a way I would not expect to write if I were to write a diary. However, to properly understand events and the significance of certain institutions or people in them, it helps to know who and what they are. Since the book explores a personal style where Michel takes you along through his experiences, these explanations occasionally feel a little pedantic. Generally however I found them to be very informative and helpful and would not do without.
Some thoughts on content
I can only comment on this book in personal terms. During the Brexit process, I intensively followed the news and developments in negotiations as well as analyses on the behaviour of the people and politicians. But it was a lot of information, generally repetitive and incomplete at the time. I found that ‘My Secret Brexit Diary’ revealed to me events, or sometimes dimensions of events that I had not noticed before. In general it helped to recap many of the events and put them in perspective.
Overall, after reading the book, I am impressed by the perseverance of unity within the EU leadership during the entire negotiations. I think at the time, this was certainly not the expected outcome. The UK really banked on finding ‘leverage’ with individual EU members to wedge them apart, hoping to be cleverly (deviously?) divisive. But from very early on, in fact, way before British politicians understood ‘the fight was on’, the remaining EU leaders latched on to the conviction that anything but unity would be disastrous. Mr. Barnier will not have been the sole influence here, but he makes it clear that he devoted a considerable amount of energy to visit and convince people in the various EU capitals to stick together, and to be represented as a unit by a chief negotiator - which would be mr. Barnier soon after. I believe this consolidation has mattered tremendously for the EU side of the Brexit chapter. Imagine a world where France would try to cut a different deal than Germany.
It is perhaps a little unfair to say, considering the different situations of the UK on one side and the EU on the other, but it is undeniable that the EU side appeared way more professional. Clearly, it helped that the EU had a continuous and rules based stance, whereas the UK suffered from multiple government changes and chaotic infighting. So in this book we see a calm, confident and prepared EU negotiator versus a UK side trying to keep the appearance of having a superior hand of cards - but, in the poker analogy, never really aware how many cards are in the game, what the stakes are, and in fact not even secure who on their own side is actually holding which cards. The British were simply too much at odds with themselves to be able to devise a strategy they could commit themselves to, and were therefore never in a position to negotiate as hard as they promised to their voters. Now, depicting your own situation, as mr. Barnier does here, always runs the risk of a biased perspective. So we have to read with some caution. However, I did not feel the narrative to be too self-aggrandizing. Mr. Barnier takes a lot of time to put his staff in the limelight (I have a separate first-hand source telling me that the man will take a lot of time at meetings to first shake hands and small talk with everyone, and that it does make them feel ‘on board’.
Verdict
This book was very worthwhile to read and showcases something that the European Union happens to do very well: managing complex multilateral discussions and harnessing its bureaucratic strengths. Generally the EU is bashed for being too bureaucratic, but during Brexit the Brussels machinery really worked wonders. Mr. Barnier shows how that happened, and gave me the expectation that this was no fluke. Moreover, I found the book was able to rekindle the excitement I once felt about the negotiation period. The negotiations were complex in many ways, the stakes were high (re-igniting civil war in north-Ireland was the biggest fear). In the end, given all constraints a solution was eventually found, but it was a real thriller to the people involved in the negotiations. In ‘My Secret Brexit Diary’ you are introduced and guided through this adventure by president material ;). The story gives a unique insight in the workings of high level European politics. I recommend.
Some further musings
At the time of writing this, the Brexit referendum has been eight years since. It seems like an eternity. Having been (and still) quite pro-Europe and to a lesser extent pro-EU, I was shocked at the idea that a core member of the EU would propose to self-isolate from Europe, much less actually decide to actually withdraw. Many arguments have been made about how representative and informed the referendum actually was, but the fact is that it culminated, however tumultuous and chaotically, in an actual Brexit.
Brexit has been a dramatic and shocking experience for many. It has been so especially in the UK where it was inescapable and drove many people apart. Yet for people outside the UK (Netherlands here) such as me who consider the accomplishments of the EU - despite all its flaws - to be a meritorious accomplishment, Brexit was a shock. It is probably naive and sentimental on my side, but Brexit has felt to me as probably an unnecessary family fall-out. And if it was necessary then - wow, was it ever messily executed. The whole Brexit episode has played out like the unplanned teenage pregnancy of your drunk schizophrenic cousin who feels both in charge and proud of the situation, as well as desperately confused and panicked. You feel for her, but could the runt not at least have a plan how to raise and feed the kid, and, like, manage on your own? (Talking to you here, David Cameron). As a family member I also felt ashamed, disheartened, discouraged and occasionally infuriated. How could this happen? How did the grown-ups not prevent this?
So Brexit was an eye-opener for me what politicians can do or fail to do. Nowadays, I go for months not realizing Brexit ever happened, but during four years, almost an eternity, it was ever in the news. And I remember my excitement about turns and events, trying to figure out how things would pan out now, amid all the noise of the opinion pages. It mattered to me then, so it felt worthwhile to revisit the tragedy from a composed perspective. I followed the news on Brexit daily, hoping for a favourable outcome, as well as trying to make sense of what forces had led to the disaster of Brexit. Moreover, the negotiations on the terms of the divorce were very interesting to me. So when it was announced that the chief negotiator on the EU side was publishing his memoirs, I could not resist. And was not disappointed.
As an aside, I believe that had the financial crisis from 2008 not been so disrupting and terrifying, some members might not have been as scared of a fracturing EU. But in 2016 the memories of the financial stress on especially the southern members would have been strong, many leaders serving then were still around and in power, and they’d rather keep political chaos far away, thank you very much. If Brexit was supposed to have a chance, the British ought to have waited at least for Angela Merkel to wave off.
Many people have tried to point out a winner. Generally speaking, the opinions I am aware of break down amongst others in battles on moral, economic, political and diplomatic grounds. Personally however, I am less interested in declaring a winner here: As far as I’m concerned there are only losers from the mess that is called Brexit.
Compare this to a marriage where one partner files for a divorce. If you take divorce as a given, you might point out which partner is better off after the marriage has ended. But consider that marriage counseling saved that marriage? It is likely that both partners (and especially their children) would be better off in a saved marriage than in divorce.
In the same way, I feel that both EU and UK would have fared better together than apart (however glad I am that creepy grandpa Farrage has left the benches of the EU parliament…)
There is no winner here. I hope the UK returns. But I feel that the Brexit trauma sits so deep, that the UK will only muster the popular will to return if they can do so as victors. It doesn’t have to be a real victory (Many of the arguments to leave the EU were bogus, so it stands to reason that arguments to rejoin can be based on imagination, too). Perhaps winning the European soccer championships three times in a row might already do the trick? Some joint military successes? At any rate the spiralling loser-mentality at the heart of Brexit will have to be resolved. The Brits are to proud to return as the proverbial lost son, they want to be brought in with all the reverence as the liberators of WWII ravaged Europe once had, and which they have come to expect as a matter of course. It won’t be easy, but I have to hope.
Sadly for some Brits, EU members were more interested in reducing the costs of Brexit for the EU rather than finding the best solution for the UK (who’d have thunk?), and the reason for that is that accommodation the UK would have meant renegotiating much of the EU’s inner workings from the ground up. Which prospers such a nightmarishly political undertaking that no one would consider it. Imagine you have choose between either a routine tonsil removal versus an experimental open heart surgery by a team of accountants, some of which one is most likely not a monkeys….. in the same way the lesser evil was clearly an EU without the UK. The tragic side of the story is, many on the UK could not imagine how the EU could do without them. There was an attitude of a man taking a divorce so he can sleep with other women, wants to stop contributing to the household, but somehow still expects to live in the house and sleep in the bed of his ex-wife, on account of being so irreplaceable. (This is my rant, mr. Barnier says nor implies anything like this in any way). Now that the war against Europe in Ukraine is grinding on, the EU would have prized the UK military capacity more than it did during the Brexit era, so again, Brexiteers may have mistimed the divorce…
September 27, 2025
https://fromtheheartofeurope.eu/my-secret-brexit-diary-a-glorious-illusion-by-michel-barnier-and-a-note-on-translating-a-joke/
I wrote, blogged and tweeted (remember Twitter?) extensively about Brexit before, during and after the period when Barnier was the EU’s chief negotiator with the UK. My perceptions, as a fairly well-informed Brussels bubble-er, are not very different from his. There was never any intention in Brussels or the rest of the EU to sneakily reverse the decision of the UK to leave; there was however a determination that the subsequent relationship would not unduly favour the Brits. The key points that Barnier makes about the dynamics of the negotiations are conclusions that I had already drawn, but it is reassuring to see them supported here.
The most important point is that there had to be full transparency among all stakeholders on the EU side, to make sure that all 27 governments, and the European Parliament, and the European Commission (which was Barnier’s immediate paymaster), had confidence that Barnier was representing their point of view. This approach locked the whole EU into support for Barnier as negotiator, because they believed that he was supporting them. It meant that British efforts to detach EU governments from Barnier were inevitably futile, because they were always going to have more confidence in the guy who they were talking to regularly and who claimed to understand their situations, rather than the shifty Brits, who could not even agree their own line at home.
Indeed, Barnier’s main frustration in the first phase was that Theresa May failed to articulate or decide what the UK actually wanted; a fatal and unforced disadvantage for the British – if you do not know what you want, you are unlikely to get it. In the second phase, under Boris Johnson, David Frost seemed clearly to have instructions to run out the clock and force a last-minute decision which the UK (wrongly) thought would break in their favour. The British perception was that the EU was desperate to avoid a no-deal Brexit, but in fact contingency planning for that on the EU side had started as soon as the referendum results came in, and the Brits (as usual) were way behind the curve.
I was interested in a couple of Barnier’s personal observations, which need to be tempered by the obvious fact that he has massaged his diary notes for publication. Reading between the lines, he clearly regarded David Davis as convivial company, but fundamentally very stupid, which is pretty much how Davis came across at the time and comes across now. There is a ‘lost hero’ narrative believed by some on the Tory right, that Davis was astutely negotiating for British interests until May sneakily entrusted Olly Robbins with doing the deal behind his back. In fact, Davis did nothing but occasionally visit TV studios to muddy the waters.
Second, the one person on his own side who Barnier does regard with suspicion and annoyance is Martin Selmayr, who on a couple of occasions tried to bypass or minimise Barnier’s role, purely for the sake of bureaucratic turf-warring; there was no ideological difference between them. On these occasions, Barnier went straight to Juncker, who corrected the situation quickly. Juncker himself comes across as somewhat disengaged, but engaged enough to be supportive of Barnier’s work.
I was also interested to note that about twenty people who I know personally crop up in the narrative, usually in complimentary terms – including even Diane Dodds of the DUP! Barnier felt that he knew Northern Ireland a bit – as noted above, my own first encounter with him was at a Northern Ireland event – and while I don’t think he knew it quite as intimately as he perhaps believed, he certainly displayed more knowledge and sympathy than anyone in the British Conservative government (I’ll make an honourable exception for the six months of Julian Smith in 2019-20).
There is an argument in some EU and British circles that Barnier created problems by negotiating too successfully and putting the UK in a worse position at the end than it needed to be. I must say I think that the blame for the UK doing badly in the negotiations does not, in my view, rest with the other side. I found this a useful though not a challenging read.
I wrote, blogged and tweeted (remember Twitter?) extensively about Brexit before, during and after the period when Barnier was the EU’s chief negotiator with the UK. My perceptions, as a fairly well-informed Brussels bubble-er, are not very different from his. There was never any intention in Brussels or the rest of the EU to sneakily reverse the decision of the UK to leave; there was however a determination that the subsequent relationship would not unduly favour the Brits. The key points that Barnier makes about the dynamics of the negotiations are conclusions that I had already drawn, but it is reassuring to see them supported here.
The most important point is that there had to be full transparency among all stakeholders on the EU side, to make sure that all 27 governments, and the European Parliament, and the European Commission (which was Barnier’s immediate paymaster), had confidence that Barnier was representing their point of view. This approach locked the whole EU into support for Barnier as negotiator, because they believed that he was supporting them. It meant that British efforts to detach EU governments from Barnier were inevitably futile, because they were always going to have more confidence in the guy who they were talking to regularly and who claimed to understand their situations, rather than the shifty Brits, who could not even agree their own line at home.
Indeed, Barnier’s main frustration in the first phase was that Theresa May failed to articulate or decide what the UK actually wanted; a fatal and unforced disadvantage for the British – if you do not know what you want, you are unlikely to get it. In the second phase, under Boris Johnson, David Frost seemed clearly to have instructions to run out the clock and force a last-minute decision which the UK (wrongly) thought would break in their favour. The British perception was that the EU was desperate to avoid a no-deal Brexit, but in fact contingency planning for that on the EU side had started as soon as the referendum results came in, and the Brits (as usual) were way behind the curve.
I was interested in a couple of Barnier’s personal observations, which need to be tempered by the obvious fact that he has massaged his diary notes for publication. Reading between the lines, he clearly regarded David Davis as convivial company, but fundamentally very stupid, which is pretty much how Davis came across at the time and comes across now. There is a ‘lost hero’ narrative believed by some on the Tory right, that Davis was astutely negotiating for British interests until May sneakily entrusted Olly Robbins with doing the deal behind his back. In fact, Davis did nothing but occasionally visit TV studios to muddy the waters.
Second, the one person on his own side who Barnier does regard with suspicion and annoyance is Martin Selmayr, who on a couple of occasions tried to bypass or minimise Barnier’s role, purely for the sake of bureaucratic turf-warring; there was no ideological difference between them. On these occasions, Barnier went straight to Juncker, who corrected the situation quickly. Juncker himself comes across as somewhat disengaged, but engaged enough to be supportive of Barnier’s work.
I was also interested to note that about twenty people who I know personally crop up in the narrative, usually in complimentary terms – including even Diane Dodds of the DUP! Barnier felt that he knew Northern Ireland a bit – as noted above, my own first encounter with him was at a Northern Ireland event – and while I don’t think he knew it quite as intimately as he perhaps believed, he certainly displayed more knowledge and sympathy than anyone in the British Conservative government (I’ll make an honourable exception for the six months of Julian Smith in 2019-20).
There is an argument in some EU and British circles that Barnier created problems by negotiating too successfully and putting the UK in a worse position at the end than it needed to be. I must say I think that the blame for the UK doing badly in the negotiations does not, in my view, rest with the other side. I found this a useful though not a challenging read.
September 1, 2023
2.5 stars rounded up because I'm glad Barnier handled the Brexit negotiations for the EU and that he did a good job. But what made him a good negotiator perhaps makes him a lousy writer. A lot of political grand standing and a lot of dry procedural wrangling that probably beat the British into submission. You learn that the British basically were fighting more among themselves than with the EU, but that's hardly new. Michel will also constantly tell you how beautiful the Savoy region of France is and list every corner of the continent in which de Gaulle took a shit. There's very little in the way of spicy dishing out, though I did quite enjoy his elegantly cunty put-downs of David Davis, Arlene Foster and Diane Dodds. But he reserves the best zingers for fellow EU bureaucrat Martin Selmayr. Don't mess with Michel!
October 14, 2022
THE authoritative guide to what went wrong, and what went right.
Spoiler alert: respectively that was the British and European sides of the negotiation table.
An abridged version should really be included in the UK's national curriculum as an instructive manual; it could effortlessly cover off project management, team work, game theory, negotiation, logic, reason, diplomacy, and communication and many other subjects beside.
A little long-winded and verbose in places, it might have benefited from some editing but then I suppose it would lose some of its authenticity. Don't be put off by this trivial nit-picking on my part which does not sufficiently detract from the overall usefulness of this fascinating insight.
Spoiler alert: respectively that was the British and European sides of the negotiation table.
An abridged version should really be included in the UK's national curriculum as an instructive manual; it could effortlessly cover off project management, team work, game theory, negotiation, logic, reason, diplomacy, and communication and many other subjects beside.
A little long-winded and verbose in places, it might have benefited from some editing but then I suppose it would lose some of its authenticity. Don't be put off by this trivial nit-picking on my part which does not sufficiently detract from the overall usefulness of this fascinating insight.
February 14, 2022
Very interesting, should be required reading
Michelle Barron year was the European Union‘s chief negotiator for Brexit. Of course he has views and of course he has an agenda. Even so, this is an extremely interesting, very revealing in-depth look at a complicated chapter in the interaction between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union. Above all, it shows that the British negotiators far too often backtracked on previous commitments, and seemed out of their depth. Perhaps not surprising: the Brexiteers never thought they would win the British referendum and had no plans for what to do when they do it.
Michelle Barron year was the European Union‘s chief negotiator for Brexit. Of course he has views and of course he has an agenda. Even so, this is an extremely interesting, very revealing in-depth look at a complicated chapter in the interaction between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union. Above all, it shows that the British negotiators far too often backtracked on previous commitments, and seemed out of their depth. Perhaps not surprising: the Brexiteers never thought they would win the British referendum and had no plans for what to do when they do it.
July 23, 2024
This took me a long time, but I am glad I persevered. It is the diplomatic account (Michael Barnier rarely lets his full true feelings come through) of Brexit and the Brexit negotiations. We all know by now what a s...-show this was, but the incompetence, arrogant ways as well as downright lies UK politicians peddled not only Barnier, the heads of the other states, and the various Brexit teams working to get a good deal for everyone is so shameful. The lies that were then also told to the UK population are outrageous. I guess we know all that by now.
Not an easy read, but if anyone still wants to know the EU side, this is informative.
Not an easy read, but if anyone still wants to know the EU side, this is informative.
November 6, 2021
This took me far too long to read.
Even though they did a good job, you can't lose the feeling that the European negotiators were somewhat out of touch. Barnier himself is very weird at times, and the "diary" reads far too sterile.
Both sides were victims of the stupidity of British internal politics. This is the part missing - the actual internal problems of the British side (which are mentioned, but not in depth) as those would provide a better explanation for the behavior of the British negotiators.
Even though they did a good job, you can't lose the feeling that the European negotiators were somewhat out of touch. Barnier himself is very weird at times, and the "diary" reads far too sterile.
Both sides were victims of the stupidity of British internal politics. This is the part missing - the actual internal problems of the British side (which are mentioned, but not in depth) as those would provide a better explanation for the behavior of the British negotiators.
May 22, 2021
Simply amazing! I mean the people who say Barnier is a moron should shut up. Here are the secret notes of a great and relevant political man. This is the entire story of the Brexit that ended in 1916 (?). Because this Brexit doesn't seem to have even started in 2021. Or maybe this great man living all expenses paid by the tax payer, just put a pillow case over his head and went into the Parliament's basement to check with his crystal ball. Amazing.
March 3, 2024
Prescient - "Many regions in the UK, in France and Belgium and elsewhere have a sense of being abandoned by power; deprived of public services, of industry, of a future. This is what I call a ‘popular’ sentiment, which is not the same thing as populism. Populist politicians are using it for their own purposes, particularly in relation to immigration, but we have to understand it and respond and offer solutions at different levels – at the European, national and regional level.”
December 17, 2022
A first-hand account of Brexit negotiations. At best, we British were honestly straightforward ( thanks to Olly Robbins / Theresa May) but unprepared and, in the worst-case scenario, conducted psychodramas (Boris/David Davis).
One thing is sure. Britain's reputation has been nose-dived because of things that happened after Brexit.
One thing is sure. Britain's reputation has been nose-dived because of things that happened after Brexit.
December 16, 2023
While this was the first account of Brexit I've read from the ‘other’ side, and in some ways it was quite enlightening, equally I did find this tedious in places. I'm no Brexiteer but the fickle UK versus near-faultless EU did get a bit tiring as well, and I feel like I learnt less than I thought I might.
September 26, 2024
Read the French version: excellent and not just because of the subject it covers. It also describes the sheer amateurism of the British, as well as their lies and manipulations and the extreme pressure on the team. It also shows how to negotiate. Mr Barnier and his team earned my respect and also got me more interested in the EU and European affairs.
January 6, 2025
This was my first ever political genre based read to be honest this book had a confusing beginning but it became easier to understand throughout the rest of the chapters it's a very heavy read as a first political book but I enjoyed it even though it sounded like a political rant or maybe even a tantrum.
April 13, 2023
This book is a testament to the abject mismanagement of Brexit by those British politicians who had no clue what to do after they “won” the referendum. The writing itself is quite dull, with Mr. Barnier focusing mainly on praising the hard work of those involved in the years-long negotiations.
November 9, 2023
La Grande illusion par Michel Barnier
J ai aime bien ce livre que decrit le travail apres Brexit pour reparer la lien entre l europe et la Grande Bretagne. Je propose ce livre a ceux qui sont les plus affecte par brexit comme moi d origine l irlande du nord. Martin
J ai aime bien ce livre que decrit le travail apres Brexit pour reparer la lien entre l europe et la Grande Bretagne. Je propose ce livre a ceux qui sont les plus affecte par brexit comme moi d origine l irlande du nord. Martin
July 26, 2025
Récit intéressant sur la négociation du Brexit, on apprend vraiment les « dessous » de ce qui s’est avéré être un enfer suite à la décision des Britanniques de quitter l’UE. Toutefois, le livre est assez long et sa forme de journal intime rend la lecture lente et parfois assez ennuyante.
February 18, 2022
Very interesting read, for even outside the world of politics on how to stay true to your values.
November 20, 2022
Ontzettend interessant
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews