So key differences in the Revised Political Declaration for the shape of the trade relationship - Left. New one, Right. Old one.
Goods trading relationship no longer “as close as possible” but “ambitious”... /1
Goods trading relationship no longer “as close as possible” but “ambitious”... /1
...reference to no need for checks on “rules of origin” on GB-EU trade that PM May negotiated into the Political Declaration last year, is now gone, alongside backstop. Imp for cars/ manufacturing etc
This was one key reason May said Labour/ Corbyn should support her deal... /2
This was one key reason May said Labour/ Corbyn should support her deal... /2
There is no longer the Point 25 reference to “consider aligning” to with EU rules “in relevant areas” for cooperation with aviation, medical and chemical agencies ... /3
... and the Level Playing Field paragraph is longer, because it no longer builds on now deleted legally binding ones in the Withdrawal Agreement .. extra ref to “undue distortion of trade”... “curb harmful tax practices” and “Paris agreement”... /4
All in all, revisions to both docs water down Mays legal guarantees for ongoing alignment.
Still allow for some, indeed had to in order to get aim of tariff free trade deal.
Rules of origin checks back on GB-EU trade too.
In return freer hand on regulation/ other trade deals
Still allow for some, indeed had to in order to get aim of tariff free trade deal.
Rules of origin checks back on GB-EU trade too.
In return freer hand on regulation/ other trade deals
That is of no surprise of course, such alignment was precisely why so many in her own party did not back former PM’s deal. Trajectory now different.
Labour MPs looking for more legal guarantees of level playing field arrangements, have not got fewer. But option of them remains.
Labour MPs looking for more legal guarantees of level playing field arrangements, have not got fewer. But option of them remains.
