Trade deal and the level playing field
EU: Both sides want a free-trade agreement with zero tariffs and zero quotas, ie no restrictions on the quantity of imports or exports. Then it gets complicated. The European Union says “zero-zero” is only available if the UK makes a legally binding pledge not to undercut European companies. That means following EU rules on state aid, which would stop the UK government from showering British companies with large subsidies. On social and employment law, environmental standards and tax, EU standards should be “a reference point”, meaning the government would have to match the spirit, if not the letter of the law, when the EU upgrades its regulations.
UK: The government states it will not agree “to any obligations for our laws to be aligned with the EU’s”. The British position for post-Brexit talks is sprinkled with references to trade agreements the EU has signed with Canada and Japan, to make the point that the EU is making unprecedented demands on the UK.
Fisheries
EU: Brussels,, on the instigation of the eight EU member states whose fleet fish most in UK waters, has set out a maximalist position on fishing rights in the future. The negotiating mandate for Michel Barnier is scattered with the word “uphold”. The EU is effectively seeking the status quo, under which the historical fishing catches of the member states in British waters is respected. The EU’s leverage is in the link Brussels has made with the wider trade deal. Unless a mutually satisfactory agreement is found – and the political declaration sets 1 July as a soft deadline – the EU could block British fishers from selling their produce into the European market.
UK: The EU’s annual negotiation with Norway is the model being cited by the British government. London also insists that the issue is not part of the wider trade talks. This is an attempt to decouple the fish catch in UK waters from fish sales in EU markets. The UK rejects the EU’s “relative stability” principle within the common fisheries policy, which sets national shares based on the patterns of catch of the early 1970s. They want a lot more fish. EU vessels licensed to fish in UK waters would work under UK rules.
The European court of justice’s role in dispute settlement
EU: The bloc is seeking a blockbuster agreement covering everything from trade to transport, foreign policy to fish. All disputes would be referred to an independent arbitration panel, which would issue binding rulings. But if there was a dispute about the interpretation of EU law, only the European court of justice would be able to answer the question.
UK: Boris Johnson is aiming at a “comprehensive free trade agreement”, plus separate deals on fishing, security, transport and energy. The government does not want a single dispute resolution panel, but “appropriate governance arrangements” for different deals. For the trade agreement, the UK has not ruled out an independent panel – a standard feature of trade deals. But it fears the ECJ’s right to interpret EU law gives the Luxembourg court a role. That is unacceptable, the government insists: the ECJ cannot have any jurisdiction in the UK.
Financial services
EU: The emphasis of the EU’s position is on its power to make “equivalence decisions in their own interest”, in reference to the ability to cut off the City of London from the European market at whim. The EU allows actors in non-member states to provide services in its market on the basis that it judges the regulatory and supervisory environment of that foreign power to be in line with its own. Past evidence shows, however, that it is a stick that can be deployed by the EU to get what it wants on other issues. The EU cut off investor access to the Swiss stock market when talks floundered on a wider renegotiation of its relationship with Switzerland.
UK: With financial services accounting for 6.9% of UK gross domestic product in 2018, maintaining access to European clients for the City of London is a big deal. And the City hates surprises. The UK needs to convince the financial services sector that it remains a predictable and stable environment in which to work. To that end, the government is seeking to cushion any equivalence withdrawal decisions in the future through “appropriate consultation and structured processes … to facilitate the enduring confidence which underpins trade in financial services.”
Security
EU: The bloc is aiming for a “broad” and “comprehensive” agreement, but has warned that a non-EU country, outside the EU’s passport-free Schengen zone, cannot expect the close-knit arrangement of an EU member. The crime-fighting agreement would end immediately if the UK chose to quit the European convention on human rights.
UK: The British government has called for fast exchange of criminal records, DNA and fingerprints, as well as information sharing on criminal suspects, as it seeks to replicate existing EU databases and programmes. The UK is not seeking to join the EU police agency Europol, nor EU law enforcement agency Eurojust, but wants to work with both. The UK also wants to sign an extradition agreement to replace the European arrest warrant. But Boris Johnson’s government has not repeated Theresa May’s pledge to remain in the ECHR in an official document on post-Brexit ambitions. A government spokesperson said: “The UK remains committed to the European convention on human rights.”
Foreign policy and defence
EU: Brussels laid out plans for “ambitious, close and lasting” cooperation with a invitation to the UK to join its missions and operations on a case-by-case basis. The level of UK input into their leadership would depend on the level of British contribution. There would be structures for intelligence-sharing and involvement in joint defence research and innovation.
UK: The issue of defence cooperation does not emerge once in the UK’s negotiating mandate. And on foreign policy, the UK merely suggests “friendly dialogue and cooperation”. These areas “do not require an institutionalised relationship”, the paper adds. The UK is the pre-eminent actor in European defence in terms of intelligence and defence spending. It is not offering to give the EU anything before seeing how the trade talks develop.
Transport
EU: British lorry drivers would no longer have the same rights as their EU counterparts to deliver goods between EU member states, although they would be able to transport items between the UK and EU. However, this access would depend on the government maintaining EU-level standards on workers’ rights. In contrast, the UK wants British hauliers to be able to provide services without restrictions, which it acknowledges has no direct EU precedent, although it argues that some EU countries have similar bilateral treaties.
UK: British aviation companies should be able to operate flights between the UK and EU, without barriers. In an attempt to protect British Airways and its owner IAG, the UK argues against “unnecessary restrictions” on the nationality of who can control a British or EU airline. The EU stresses that the UK cannot have the same rights and benefits as an EU member state.
Science and research
EU: Brussels is playing hard to get. The UK is the third most popular country of destination for Erasmus students and its scientific hubs are a major driver of EU research programmes. Involvement will all come down to hard cash – of which the EU is decidedly short following the UK’s exit.
UK: The British government is equally coy and says it will “consider a relationship in line with non-EU member state participation” in key research programmes such as Horizon Europe, which brings together European scientists, Euratom Research and Training, and Copernicus, the programme for monitoring the Earth from space. The two sides will have to engage in a tough negotiation in terms of payments into the programmes and the level of leadership UK actors will have.
Bloc’s first UK ambassador says right to remain for many vulnerable Europeans must be protected
Prisoners and members of the Roma community, along with elderly people and the poorest in society, will be the focus of a new EU push to help Europeans “outside the mainstream” to remain in the UK after Brexit.
There are concerns that thousands of EU nationals will fail to apply to the Home Office to stay because they lack information or the means to see the digital application process through.
The new EU ambassador to the UK, João Vale de Almeida, said Brussels and the embassies of the bloc’s 27 member states in London needed to step up efforts to reach those on the fringes of British society.
EU nationals need to apply before 31 June 2021 to remain in the UK but there is uncertainty about the number of citizens affected and the level of success in information getting through to the most cut-off groups.
Vale de Almeida said a special focus was on “everyone that is for some reason outside the mainstream for socioeconomic [reasons] or age or ethnic or otherwise”. He added: “Roma people is a big issue as well for some countries.”
The embassy said EU officials have held talks with the Home Office on how those in UK prisons or in pre-trial detention could be advised of their rights.
A monitoring network of 50 NGOs has been established by the EU embassy in London, which is also looking into the issue, with bimonthly meetings held to map the wider situation.
Vale de Almeida, the first ever EU ambassador to the UK, said: “It is possible that at the end of this period or close to the end of the period we’ll have to reassess where we are, and what are the main issues that will have to be answered to avoid too many people being left out.
“And then there’s the issue of how the UK is going to treat those who for some reason, are outside of the deadline and could not make it in time. And that we will have, in dialogue with UK authorities, to see how we can deal with all those problems. That’s why I’m saying in the year and so left we have to step up our efforts.”
The Tory minister Brandon Lewis, when he was security minister, had suggested that those who failed to meet the deadline would face deportation.
The Home Office has since clarified that it will be generous towards those who miss the cut-off through no fault of their own.
There is no automatic bar on EU nationals with criminal records being allowed to stay but a prison sentence wipes out years of accumulated residence.
Settled status, under which EU nationals retain similar rights to today, requires five years living in the UK. Those seeking pre-settled status must show they have been resident for some period before the end of 2020.
There are 4,000 EU nationals in British prisons. The charity Unlock, which works for the rights of people with criminal convictions, estimates about 500,000 EU nationals have criminal records, in line with the proportion of the UK population.
Vale de Almeida said he did not believe EU nationals needed to be alarmed by the recent deportation of 17 Jamaicans with convictions, many of whom had lived in the UK for decades.
“I have no reasons to make any pre-judgment on any behaviour,” he said. “For the time being, we’re working well with with our British [partners]. I think we need to be very attentive and try to identify cases where things are not working well.”
Vale de Almeida said an obstacle was the lack of firm figures on how many EU nationals are in the UK, with the latest estimates as high as 3.8 million. “I don’t think any of us would want, you know, hundreds of thousands of citizens to be left behind,” he said.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “We are working with vulnerable group representatives, local authorities and other experts to ensure the right support is in place for vulnerable and ‘at risk’ citizens, be it online, over the phone, or in person.
“The EU settlement scheme is as straightforward as possible and we have granted nearly 2.9 million status with over a year to go.”
New recruits needed to process millions of extra declaration forms from 1 January 2021
A race to hire 50,000 people in the next six months to process Brexit paperwork is under way after the government confirmed they would be needed for border operations.
But experts have warned it will be a challenge to train enough people in time to be competent in the complexity of customs declarations and the second layer of red tape involving entry and exit declaration forms that are mandatory for trading with the EU.
The Road Haulage Association has warned that the number of declaration forms for tariffs alone will rocket from the current 50m a year to 200-250m a year.
In addition, the exit and entry forms introduced after the 9/11 terror attack in New York to ensure safety on ferries and planes will involve another 100-125m forms being processed every year.
Michael Gove, the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is responsible for readying the country for full Brexit at the end of the year, confirmed in parliament on Thursday afternoon that the RHA estimated 50,000 new recruits would be needed in the next six months.
Rod McKenzie, the managing director of policy and public affairs at the RHA, said: “We have been told by a large freight company expert in the field that they get a productivity of around 4,000 clearances a year per staff member (that is about 20 clearances a day). That makes sense given the complexity of many transactions. Worth noting, that is with skilled, trained, experienced labour.
“So if we are dealing with 200m extra declarations, at a productivity rate of 4,000 per year that equals 50,000 staff needed on day one, and probably more.”
Official document puts likely benefits of free trade agreement with Donald Trump at below 0.2 per cent of GDP - and possibly as little as 0.02 per cent
An official government analysis of a potential trade deal with the US has found that the boost to the British economy may be as little as 0.02 per cent of GDP - around 450 times smaller than the potential loss from a no-deal Brexit.
Liberal Democrats said the figures showed that the gains from any deal with Donald Trump’s US administration “will not come close to outweighing what we expect to lose from leaving the EU” and accused Boris Johnson of being "seemingly hellbent on risking UK prosperity" .
Figures released by the government as part of the negotiating mandate for the US trade talks put the expected increase in UK GDP from a successful deal at between 0.02 per cent and 0.36 per cent.
By comparison, the government’s most recent estimate of the cost of Brexit to the UK economy, published in 2018, suggested that a Canada-style free trade agreement could hit GDP by between 3.4 and 6.4 per cent, while a no-deal Brexit - referred to by Boris Johnson as an “Australian-style agreement” - would cost the economy between 6.3 and 9 per cent of GDP.
Despite casting doubt on the 2018 estimates, Mr Johnson’s government has so far not produced its own assessment of the economic impact of Brexit.
Unlike the for the proposed UK/US deal published by the Department for International Trade today, last week’s mandate for talks with the EU made no estimate of the likely impact of a deal in cash or percentage terms.
Today's figures are likely to increase pressure on Mr Johnson to spell out his estimates of the likely economic outcome of the negotiations with the EU which kicked off in Brussels today.
The DIT document sets out two “plausible” outcomes from the planned US talks - a more limited deal delivering “substantial” tariff liberalisation and a 25 per cent reduction in non-tariff barriers, and a deeper arrangement with “full” tariff liberalisation and 50 per cent reduction in non-tariff barriers.
Under the first scenario, DIT puts the likely benefit to UK GDP at between £0.5 billion and £3.1 billion (0.02-0.15 per cent), with a central estimate of £1.6 billion (0.07 per cent).
Under the second, UK GDP could increase by £1 billion - £7.7 billion (0.05-0.36 per cent), with a central estimate of £3.4 billion (0.16 per cent of GDP).
'We have significantly increased our enforcement capability....we think that is sufficient'
The government's fishing minister has warned the EU that the UK has taken “sufficient” steps to protect its waters after Brexit, as fears grow of a French blockade.
The Royal Navy boasts three extra vessels, the Home Office will provide a further four and the government can call in help from the private sector, George Eustice said.
A new control centre has been launched, 50 extra fishery protection officers have been recruited and there will be “aerial surveillance”, a House of Lords inquiry was told.
“We have significantly increased our enforcement capability,” Mr Eustice said, adding: “We think that is sufficient.”
The extra muscle was set out after the controversy of access for EU boats emerged as key dispute in the post-Brexit trade talks, with Brussels demanding an agreement by the end of June.
Ministers have reportedly been told of a “nightmare” scenario, where French fishermen blockade ports and paralyse cross-Channel trade at the end of the year.
Officials are worried that Calais is uniquely vulnerable to even a small-scale protest against attempts to restrict the access of EU fishing fleets to UK waters.
Last week, Amélie de Montchalin, France’s Europe minister, warned that, without a deal, fishing could become a “very nasty battle” and could collapse the entire trade deal.
Emmanuel Macron, the French president, is believed to have warned other EU leaders that a failure to retain access to UK waters would trigger further street protests and civil unrest in his country.
Speaking to the Lords EU environment sub-committee, Mr Eustice said enforcement capacity has been boosted five-fold, in line with fears, last year, of a no-deal Brexit.
The planned decommissioning of older vessels had been shelved and more staff given training to board vessels, with “warranted” powers.
Neil Hornby, director of marine and fisheries at the department of the environment, food and rural affairs (Defra), said Border Force vessels could be brought in if necessary.
Mr Eustice also sought to dismiss fears that the entire trade deal could be lost over the fishing dispute, suggesting EU countries without fishing fleets in the North Sea would not allow it.
But Lord Teverson, a Liberal Democrat former MEP, told the minister he needed to “get real”, saying there was “not a snowball’s chance in hell” that the EU won’t tie fisheries access to trade.
The British government has spent about 70% of the funds allocated to cover the cost of Brexit preparations. The money mostly went to cover staff costs, new infrastructure and gathering external expertise.
Preparations for the United Kingdom's exit of the European Union cost British taxpayers 4.4 billion pounds (€5.1 billion, $5.7 billion), according to the UK's National Audit Office (NAO).
In the first detailed estimate of the cost of the Brexit, the NAO on Friday estimated that the British government spent about 70% of the 6.3 billion pounds allocated to cover the cost of preparations between the June 2016 referendum and March 31 of this year. The allocated money accounts for the possibility of the UK and EU not reaching a trade deal before the end of a transition period that expires at the end of 2020.
The EU's chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, warned of "serious divergences" in expectations between the EU and the UK as the first round of post-Brexit trade talks wrapped up on Thursday.
"To be completely frank with you ... there are many divergences, and they are very serious divergences, which is probably quite natural," Barnier said.
The NAO said most of the money was spent on staff costs (1.9 billion pounds), building new infrastructure (1.5 billion pounds) and paying for external advice (288 million pounds). Some 22,000 government officials were working on Brexit at the peak when the UK was close to leaving the EU without a withdrawal deal in October 2019.
More than half of the money was spent by the Environment Agency, the Department of Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Office.
"This report provides, for the first time, a clear picture of how much government has spent and what that money has been spent on," said NAO head Gareth Davies.
He added that the report "highlighted limitations in how government monitored spending on EU exit specifically, and cross-government programs more generally."
The NAO said their estimate only focused on the cost of government preparations, not on future expenses such as the 39 billion pound divorce agreement agreed with the EU.
The aerospace industry has reacted with concern to an announcement from transport secretary Grant Shapps that the UK will leave the EU’s aviation safety regime as a result of Brexit.
Mr Shapps said the UK will leave the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) when the Brexit transition period comes to an end on 31 December, switching responsibility for aircraft certification and safety regulation to Britain’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
But industry body ADS said that staying in EASA was “the best option” for keeping UK companies competitive and ensuring their access to global export markets.
Chief executive Paul Everitt said he was “disappointed” with Mr Shapps’ approach.
Speaking to Aviation Week Network during a visit to Washington DC on Friday, Mr Shapps said: “We will leave EASA. A lot of the expertise they have is UK expertise, in fact. A lot of the key leading lights were Brits.
“The powers will revert to the CAA, who are probably one of the world’s leading regulators and the expertise will need to come home to do that, but we’ll do it in a gradual way.”
He added: “Over a period of time we’ll be wanting to develop our own certifications. One of the things we’ll want to do is be particularly forward-leaning in technology and automation.
“We’ll make sure our legislative framework is in a great place to enable those kinds of organisations to excel in the UK market.”
In response to Mr Shapps’ announcement, Mr Everitt said: “We have been clear that continued participation in EASA is the best option to maintain the competitiveness of our £36bn aerospace industry and our access to global export markets.
“UK influence in EASA contributes to raising standards in global aviation, supports collaboration with our international partners, and helps make our industry attractive to the investment it needs to be home to the development of a new generation of advanced aircraft technology.
“Government had promised it would consider harmonisation where it is in the UK interest and will be led by the evidence on the future of aviation safety regulation. We are disappointed that it has not taken a more ambitious approach. It is essential that it works with us to deliver a regime that does not put jobs at risk in an industry that employs 111,000 people in highly skilled roles across the UK.”
ADS represents more than 1,100 UK businesses in the aerospace, defense, security and space sectors.
If the period between the referendum and leaving the EU was when the seeds of a new political culture were sown, the season since the general election last December is when they have borne fruit. Downing Street’s consolidation exercise has not only extended to the purging of ministers who refuse to become vassals of No 10. It has weaponised the Brexit mandate it received by in effect turning the EU into a loyalty test. Based on who passes it, the Tories can then impose limitations on who has the right to assume government-vetted jobs, and how those jobs are fulfilled.
In an episode right out of a cold war movie, last week it emerged that classics scholar Mary Beard was blocked by Downing Street from becoming a British Museum trustee last year. Whitehall sources told the Observer the decision was made because of Beard’s pro-European views, ones that she had felt free to express on social media and are shared by half the country. But the country in which she lives has changed. The social media walls have ears. A Kremlin-style monitoring of those with EU sympathies stalks public figures. Whether her views have any bearing on her ability to do the job is neither here nor there. All that matters is allegiance to the Boris Johnson-Dominic Cummings project.
Even the job of protecting the public has been affected. The coronavirus outbreak too has fallen victim to the obsession with blocking anything EU-related, no matter whether it could cost lives. Downing Street is now locked in a row with the Department of Health over access to the EU pandemic early warning system. No 10 is allegedly preventing the department from attending meetings with EU officials to coordinate a response to the crisis. The reason for this reckless politicisation of a medical emergency is that it would risk giving the EU leverage in negotiations. Strengthening Britain’s position against the EU will happen literally over our dead bodies.
Soon, there will no criteria for how a public interest role is filled other than the candidate’s fealty and acquiescence to the control centre of a government that has put ideological loyalty above professional ability.
[...]
We should call things what they are. As we slip further into a dark timeline, being pro-EU is no longer simply a defunct remain position, it is a way for the Tories to sort people into us and them. This is authoritarianism. And it has to be challenged.
We ignore culture-war skirmishes at our peril. Every flag-waving gimmick, every stunt, every media swipe at an elected “bureaucrat” for doing their job leads to this. It is no longer limited to a conflict between leavers or remainers, or internecine scuffles within the government itself. Loyalty tests are now determining whether we receive vital information from our closest neighbours on a pandemic, and who sits on the boards of public institutions. They may seem like separate isolated, containable incidents. But that’s what we always say about the first stages of a spreading virus.
Ursula von der Leyen says UK must make up its mind
Britain must follow the "rules of the game" if it wants tariff-free trade with the EU from the end of this year, the European Commission president has warned.
In a press conference to mark the end of her first 100 days in office Ursula von der Leyen said that the UK had to "make up its mind" whether it wanted to keep access.
Brexit trade talks kicked off last week in Brussels but stumbled on the issue of whether the UK would stay aligned with some EU rules as part of a "level playing-field" of regulations.
EU countries are worried that the UK will deregulate and undercut the EU on standards, so say tariff-free trade can only continue if the UK signs up to certain standards on the environment, workers' rights, state aid and product standards.
"We are aware that there are differences in approach towards what scope a future agreement should have – and if I may say so, the rules of the game everyone has to abide to," Ms von der Leyen told reporters.
"It will be important that the United Kingdom makes up its mind: the closer they have, the access to the single market, the more of course they have to play by the rules that are the rule of the single market.
"If this is not the UK's choice then of course they will be more distant and it will be more difficult for the UK to access the single market. So I think it's up to the United Kingdom within these negotiations to think about the trade-offs they want to take into account."
Ivan Rogers says some in Downing Street appear to be 'misjudging' negotiations
The limited EU trade agreement pursued by Boris Johnson could be little better for the economy than a no-deal Brexit, the UK's former ambassador to Brussels has warned.
Sir Ivan Rogers, who served as the UK's top official in the EU capital under both David Cameron and Theresa May, said he was not optimistic at the prospect of a deal by the end of the year.
He also suggested there were people in the government "misjudging" the right approach to negotiations.
"I think you could reach a quick and dirty, skinny, very thin, FTA. You might question how much economic value it has in comparison with no-deal," he told a think-tank event in Whitehall.
On whether a deal could be reached, Sir Ivan told the audience at the UK In a Changing Europe event: "I don’t think it’s beyond the wit of bureaucrats on both sides .... but do I honestly sit here optimistic at the moment that all of this is going to happen? Of course not. I persist in saying regularly to financial market players here ... that the risk of no-deal is very considerably underestimated."
The former senior official, who quit his role 2017, said: "You’re up against a really sophisticated negotiating opponent, with huge experience in the field, and a deep and intimate knowledge of all our positions because they’ve been representing those positions for the last 40 years.
"The EU system, which is constantly disparaged in the UK, is a bloody good and formidable negotiator that knows whats it doing and it's just spent the last three years demonstrating that."
Since Boris Johnson came to power Downing Street has said it only wants a basic free trade agreement with the UK that would bring back border checks on goods.
The UK government says it wants a deal like the one the EU has signed with Canada, which removes most tariffs and quotas, but leaves the most politically contentious in place.
Britain has also signed a political declaration which states it wants to remove all tariffs and quotas on goods.
Such a deal would put the UK outside of the customs union and single market and render it the least economically connected to its neighbours of any western or central European country.
Economic forecasts have suggested a limited free trade agreement would be second only to no-deal in the damage it causes to the UK economy.
On the government's negotiating strategy, Sir Ivan said: "I suspect there are some people in No.10 who think if we go hard and demonstrate that unlike Theresa May we really are prepared to walk away ... this will concentrate the minds of some member states who will be frightened to death by the idea that we do end up with no-deal".
He added: "I think that’s the wrong judgment ... I don’t buy it but I think there are some who want a deal who are misjudging what the EU are prepared to give them."
The first round of trade talks took place Brussels last week, with the second scheduled for next week week in London. But uncertainty swirls around whether the meetings, which involve over 200 officials, with take place amid the coronavirus outbreak.
A UK government spokesperson said: “Talks remain scheduled to go ahead next week but clearly we will keep the situation under review and will be guided by scientific advice."
Document highlights distance between two sides on issues including state aid rules
Britain will have to guarantee “uniform implementation” of Brussels’s state subsidy rules while the European court of justice will hand down rulings to British courts, under the EU’s vision of the future relationship with the UK.
A 441-page treaty draft, obtained by the Guardian, spells out in full legal text for the first time the demands that Brussels will make of David Frost, the UK’s chief negotiator, in the next round of talks.
The document, which is yet to be shared with Boris Johnson’s government, highlights the distance between the two sides across a host of issues, including on the so-called level playing field conditions for British and EU businesses and rules on state aid.
Across the board, the EU envisages a close relationship in light of the close economic and security ties of today, including an insistence that the definition of terrorism used by both sides should be based on a current directive as a price for cooperation.
Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, tweeted: “We’ve sent a draft agreement on new partnership to [the European parliament] & [EU council] for discussion.
“It shows ambitious and comprehensive future relationship is possible. We must give ourselves every chance of success. We will publish the text after our exchanges & look forward to working [with the UK]”.
The document appears to signal a weakening in the EU position in only one key area: its demands on fisheries, where the 27 member states had until now been seeking to “uphold” the current common fisheries policy (CFP).
The CFP relies on historical catching patterns to determine how much fish each nation can take. The new text acknowledges the UK demand for scientific advice to take precedence and for there to be annual negotiations.
Elsewhere, however, the draft treaty offers little succour to the British government, which insists that it will not sign up to any arrangements that involve continued direct application of current EU law or oblige parliament to implement new Brussels rules in the future.
Despite the British insistence that it will devise its own state aid rules, limiting the level of subsidies from the government for ailing airlines, steel manufacturers and other industrial actors, legal text drafted by Barnier emphasises the need for the UK to apply the EU’s own rule book and “harmonise” with Brussels as policies develop.
The document stipulates that where there are disputes on state aid rules, the European court of justice in Luxembourg will be the arbiter of EU law and issue binding rulings to the British courts to implement.
Where Brussels devises entirely new rules on state aid, whether to industry or farmers, a new joint committee will have to sit within six weeks and “add the new act or provision” or the EU would be free to implement “sanctions” that “have a real and deterrent effect”.
The draft treaty also insists that the UK will have to guarantee “non regression” on EU regulations on labour and social protection despite its withdrawal from the bloc.
On environmental standards, the EU insists that targets set by Brussels will also apply to the UK after it leaves the single market and customs union at the end of the year.
The regulations referred to in the document include industrial emissions, air quality targets and nature and biodiversity conservation.
The document also refers to harmonisation on “health and sanitary safety in the agricultural and food sector”, in a sign that the EU will resist changes to UK laws to allow the production of chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-treated beef.
The US government is likely to demand access to the British market for such produce, which would undercut UK farmers unless they too could change their practices.
The next round of negotiations between the two sides, which started last month, was due to take place next week but face-to-face talks in London have been cancelled in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
EU and UK officials are expected to take part in stripped back talks through videoconference calls. Failure to agree a deal by the end of the year will require both sides to implement tariffs and quota conditions on goods being traded between the UK and the EU.
And it will cost more here because of the UK pulling out of the European Medicines Agency on 30 December
The UK faces having to wait longer and pay more to acquire a coronavirus vaccine because it has left the EU, health experts and international legal experts warn today.
In an article published today on the Guardian website, the academics and lawyers say Boris Johnson’s determination to “go it alone”, free of EU regulation, after Brexit means the UK will probably have to join other non-EU countries in a queue to acquire the vaccine after EU member states have had it, and on less-favourable terms.
The authors include Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and legal academics Anniek de Ruijter of Amsterdam Law School and Mark Flear of Queens University, Belfast.
The UK will leave the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the body responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines, at the end of the transition period on 30 December. This means it will no longer be part of the EU’s regulatory regime, which allows for “accelerated assessment” of products developed by drugs companies during a pandemic.
The UK has already withdrawn from the EU’s emergency bulk-buying mechanism for vaccines and medicines, under which member states strike collective agreements with pharmaceutical companies, which speeds up their access to the latest products during a crisis.
The academics write: “For all these reasons ... the UK is likely to have to join the queue for access with other countries outside the EU, and to pay more than it would otherwise as an EU member state.
“Looking further ahead, this problem will not be limited to emergencies and the UK can expect slower and more limited access to medicines, especially those for rare conditions or those used to treat children, where the market is small.”
They argue that the UK could still avoid the worst by agreeing to align fully with the EMA’s regulations from outside the EU. But they say Johnson has so far indicated that his team have no intention of doing so and do not want to operate as “rule takers”.
While it appears the UK government wants to press ahead with its own regulatory system and rapid market authorisation system for emergencies, the experts say this will be all but impossible to put in place in time for a new Covid-19 vaccine, which is expected in about a year.
Even then the view in medical circles is that pharmaceutical companies are likely to look first to the EU for regulatory approval and an agreement on sale, given the scale of the market they would be selling into.
Olivier Wouters of the London School of Economics and Political Science, said: “After the Brexit transition period, the UK will no longer be part of the EMA and will therefore have to make its own regulatory decisions, unless ongoing EU-UK trade negotiations result in the UK aligning itself with European rules.
“The UK could, in theory, choose to recognise any approval decision made by the EMA to prevent delays, but this seems at odds with the UK government’s pledge to ‘take back control’. If the UK authorities instead choose to set up a separate review and approval process for medicines and vaccines, then it might delay access to a new coronavirus therapy.
“The country could experience disruptions as the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the country’s counterpart to the EMA, works to fill the gap left by the departure of the EMA.
“Vaccine makers and drug companies may decide to first seek approval from the EMA, which represents some 500 million patients, before seeking approval from the UK MHRA, which covers a smaller patient pool.”
Asked about the prospect of the UK having to pay higher prices for a vaccine, he said: “If a coronavirus vaccine is developed, EU countries may choose to band together to jointly procure the vaccine. This would give EU countries more bargaining power against a vaccine maker to try to secure a lower price. If the UK were excluded from such a joint procurement scheme, it’s possible that the UK would end up paying a higher price than the EU for the same vaccine.”
EMA was based in London until January last year, when Brexit saw it relocate to Amsterdam.
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “The UK and our friends and partners across Europe are part of a concerted international effort to combat the threat of COVID-19. We are confident that our current close working relationships will continue as we ready ourselves for all eventualities. We’re fully supporting the UK’s world-leading, disease research sector to play a key role in the global effort, with £40 million of new funding for rapid research into the virus.”
Talks on Wednesday abandoned – and plans to publish UK’s hopes for a future trade agreement shelved
Boris Johnson has slammed the brakes on the Brexit negotiations because of the coronavirus crisis – hours after his foreign secretary insisted they could go ahead as planned.
Talks due to take place by conference call on Wednesday have been scrapped and plans to publish the UK’s hopes for a future trade agreement shelved.
Downing Street insisted the legal position was still “the transition period ends on 31 December 2020”, but – for the first time – did not state it would definitely conclude on that date.
The second round of the negotiations was already in disarray after face-to-face talks were scrapped, with around 100 EU negotiators unable to travel from Brussels.
The two sides had been attempting to set up complex conference calls instead, but even that has now been abandoned – with no obvious restart date in sight.
The move dramatically cuts the odds on the UK having to seek an extension to the transition beyond 2020, to avoid the tumult of a hard Brexit – or a no-deal Brexit – being piled on the massive disruption from the pandemic.
Previously, No 10 has insisted that will not happen, but today’s statement stated simply: “The transition period ends on 31 December 2020. This is enshrined in UK law.”
Michael Gove, who is overseeing the talks, had pledged to publish a draft free trade agreement (FTA) before tomorrow, but this will now happen “in the near future”.
A government spokesman said: “In light of the latest guidance on coronavirus, we will not formally be convening negotiating work strands tomorrow in the way we did in the previous round.
“We expect to share a draft FTA alongside the draft legal texts of a number of the standalone agreements in the near future still, as planned.”
One report suggested the UK is already privately preparing the ground to agree an extension in the coming weeks, as both sides struggle to focus on their negotiating aims.
In London, civil servants who had been working on no-deal preparations are being redeployed into trying to cope with the escalating crisis.
The UK has threatened to walk away – and prepare fully for a no deal – without marked progress by June, but there is no guarantee any talks can take place before then.
The two sides are miles apart on the UK’s insistence on the right to break EU rules on state aid, fishing, financial services and workers’ and environmental rights.
The UK has the option of extending the transition by up to two years to protect the economy – but Mr Johnson passed a law to underline his determination not to do that.
Earlier, Dominic Raab, the foreign secretary, was accused of “reckless insanity” after claiming coronavirus had strengthened the case for completing Brexit at the end of the year.
The crisis had made “the case for intensive diplomacy to get this deal done and move on and take the relationship to the next level, he told MPs.
And he suggested MPs calling for a longer transition had an “ideological desire” not to cut ties with the EU.
Campaigners fear that EU rules banning dangerous chemicals will be relaxed to allow American companies into UK market
[...]
More than 1,300 toxic ingredients have been banned from use in cosmetics in the UK, with restrictions on a further 500 ingredients. In comparison, only 11 are banned in the US, according to the group. It points out that animal testing of cosmetics is legal in the US, but banned in the UK.
“Chemical regulation in the US is like the wild west – it’s what happens when you allow big business to dictate the rules, rather than thinking about consumer protection or the need to protect the environment,” said the group’s director Nick Dearden.
“And with Trump in charge, it’s getting worse by the week. Our big worry here is that, under a trade deal with the US, parts of this system will be imported into Britain, and that the concerns people have rightly voiced about chlorine chicken will be expanded to all manner of products that people use on their body.”
As with food, in the US the burden lies chiefly with the regulator to prove something is unsafe rather than with business to demonstrate that it is safe. Campaigners blame this approach for a number of high-profile safety lapses.
... ... ...
Boris Johnson's father is in the process of applying for a French passport to maintain his ties with Europe after Brexit.
Stanley Johnson, a former MEP who voted Remain in the referendum, has requested to become a French citizen as his mother Irene was born in Versailles.
The move was revealed by the prime minister's sister Rachel, an ardent Europhile, in her new book, Rake's Progress.
Ms Johnson said that her father is “en route to becoming a French citizen, as his mother had been born in Versailles and his grandmother had been in Paris”.
She added: “This is good news — I might be able to become French too.”
Stanley Johnson claims he predicted coronavirus 40 years ago in novel
A source close to the family told The Sunday Times that Mr Johnson Sr has applied so that his grandchildren can live and work in the EU after Brexit.
Asked about obtaining a French passport last year, Mr Johnson said: “It’s a nice thought. These things are always among the options — members of my family might be [interested].”
The prime minister's family is famously split over Brexit, despite Mr Johnson's pivotal role in take the UK out of the EU.
His sister, Ms Johnson, joined the Liberal Democrats ahead of the 2017 election after denouncing Tory support for Brexit.
She defected to the short-lived Independent Group for Change last year, unsuccessfully standing as a candidate in the European elections.
Boris Johnson has been accused of letting “Brexit ideology dictate his approach to Coronavirus” after the government refused to take part in an EU scheme to procure much-needed medical equipment.
European countries have banded together collectively to procure bulk orders of ventilators and personal protective equipment, with the first phase now having secured “offers of considerable scale on shortest notice”.
The UK was invited to take part in the scheme, which is leveraging the 500 million-person single market’s huge buying power to secure faster and cheaper orders with less admin at a time of extreme global demand.
But UK officials confirmed on Wednesday that Britain would not be taking part in the scheme, after previously having said the government would decide which way to go.
The prime minister was questioned about the availability of equipment in parliament on Wednesday and said orders were being delivered to UK hospitals where doctors have been warning of a shortage.
[...]
The first order placed by the EU, which will go to 25 of the 27 member states, covers “masks type 2 and 3, gloves, goggles, face-shields, surgical masks and overalls” – all of which are needed in the UK. Britain was invited to participate as it is still in the Brexit transition period and so is still being treated like a member state.
Ed Davey, the acting leader of the Liberal Democrats told The Independent: “Reports that the UK were offered the opportunity to take part in this scheme and refused are deeply disturbing.
“The Coronavirus knows no borders. It is a pandemic. International solidarity is crucial to protecting the UK. If working with the EU means we can get access to more protective equipment any sensible government would jump at the chance.
“The PM must not let Brexit ideology dictate his approach to Coronavirus. People’s lives must come first.”
Asked if the UK was taking part in EU procurement schemes, the prime minister's spokesman said: "I think the short answer to that is no. In relation to ventilators we have been undertaking extensive efforts, securing ventilators from private hospitals and working with industry on a response to provide more equipment."
