That news conference in Berlin was frankly a bit confusing... It *sounds* like @BorisJohnson has committed to come forward with detailed alternatives to the backstop within the next 30 days, which takes us to the 19th September. (1)
Merkel has promised she’ll consider them. But the EU doesn’t think there *are* any workable alternatives, certainly not that are available in the next month. (2)
She thinks the solution lies in the future economic relationship - but only a very close UK/EU relationship will avoid the need for the backstop to come in and Johnson wants a looser one which makes the backstop *more* necessary in the EU’s eyes. Oh well, the show goes on. (3)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
EU has shared a 441-page text of a "New Partnership with the UK" with member states, which pretty faithfully translates the mandate. On state aid, UK would implement a list of EU laws (currently blank) but could opt out from new legislation. ECJ rulings binding on UK (1)
On fish there would be long-term agreements on EU access to British waters (length not specified) and each side's % share of specific stocks is BLANK. (2)
There would be a Partnership Council with 16 subcommittees, including one on Level Playing Field. It would refer questions about EU law to the ECJ (see Withdrawal Agreement.) (3)
Crunching the European Parliament motion on the UK.
Where it calls for ALIGNMENT:
- Environment, labour & social, relevant tax, state aid policies
- Market surveillance of products/product standards
- COP26 position
- Carbon pricing policy
- REACH
- EIB climate policies (1)
Rules which EP resolution says UK goods should FOLLOW for access to single market:
food safety, Genetically Modified Organisms, pesticides, GI's, animal welfare, labelling and traceability, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standards, and human, animal and plant health. (2)
Where EP resolution calls on UK to MAINTAIN or ADHERE:
- medical products, devices
- food safety, labelling
- veterinary, phytosanitary, and environmental policy and standards
- EU social model
- evolving standards on taxation and money laundering
- fishing quota shares (3)
According to diplomats, the European Commission was so non-plussed by one of the UK's proposals in the legal text for the replacement backstop that they had to check whether it was a mistake by the Brits. It wasn't. (1)
It's over the UK's new Article 1⃣(a) for the Ireland protocol, which would commit both sides to no checks at the Irish border ever. This + possible Stormont veto - guarantees of what checks would happen in NI = big problem for the EU27 because it's a bit like a blank cheque. (2)
The UK also wants continued access to a number of EU databases for cross-border trade, even if Stormont were to reject the Irish border arrangements during the transition period. This was contained in a series of briefings for - and written up by - EU27 diplomats.(3)
UK officials say yesterday's talks between David Frost and the European Commission were serious, but EU27 diplomats were told the British proposals were "aspirational" and "concepts" at a debrief this morning. (1)
UK proposed N Ireland and Ireland be separate customs and regulatory territories. Customs checks would take place in business premises not on the border. There'd be an "enhanced market surveillance mechanism" for industrial goods using surveillance, data and tough penalties. (2)
The UK reiterated there could be a commitment to an open border in the Withdrawal Agreement with the details agreed in the transition period -- which British officials insisted would end in 2020 and not be extended. (3)
Details have emerged of what David Frost asked for in Brussels yesterday after a briefing of EU27 diplomats by officials from the European Commission. Negotiators believe it amounted to bits of the Withdrawal Agreement crossed out NOT concrete proposals. (1)
The UK wants the backstop radically reduced to include only the articles dealing with citizens rights, the single electricity market and the Common Travel Area. UK wants removal of articles 6-10 and 12 and associated annexes. (2)
There would be general commitment to find operable solutions to the Irish border later, with the details to be agreed by the EU/UK Joint Committee after Brexit. (Along the lines of the PM's letter to Tusk.) (3)
He makes the point that the backstop is designed to maintain the status quo on the island of Ireland (a point often missed in the discussion, which is dominated by the issue of avoiding checks on the border) and that it’s already quite a big ask for the EU27.(2)
As a regular Barnier watcher, when he says he’s “not optimistic” about avoiding a No Deal I don’t think he means that he’s pessimistic and it’s becoming inevitable, just that he’s realistic. He’s always avoided giving optimism/pessimism verdicts to my great annoyance. (3)