Thread by @faisalislam

NEW:

Internal Brexit negotiations memo presented to Whitehall “Economic Partnership Steering Group” last week shows how negotiators removed the word “adequate” from description of employment, environmental level playing field standards enforcement in Political Declaration /1

note from the cross Whitehall group planning future UK-EU trade deal, reviewing the renegotiation, first leaked to FT and seen by BBC say UK and EU “will include “appropriate” (rather than ‘adequate’) mechanisms for dispute settlement” of key level playing field commitments”.../2

consequence of that change, note says, is it means it’s now possible to argue it is “inappropriate for the future UK-EU relationship” that disputes about these commitments on employment, environment, tax, state aid and other standards should be subject to binding arbitration. /3

Memo says: “previous Protocol applied wide-ranging LPF measures on a UK-wide basis as a response to UK access to the EU market through single customs territory. UK negotiators successfully resisted the inclusion of all UK-wide LPF rules” with last four words placed in bold ... /4

“The only level playing field provisions in the revised Protocol are those necessary to support the operation of the Single Electricity Market and state aid measures that affect trade between NI and the EU,” says memo /5

*** Title of the memo - “Update to EPSG (Economic Partnership Steering Group) on Level Playing Field Negotiations” —-

This rather appears to acknowledge that changes to the binding Level Playing Field commitments were an aim of at least part of the negotiation... /6

Indeed reading other bits of the memo, it rather appears that weakening the strength and scope of the Level Playing Field commitments in Theresa May’s deal was considered a great negotiating win which allows for “much more open starting point” for future relationship /7

Under subtitle “Next Steps” the memo concludes that “The Political Declaration text provides us with a framework for negotiating FTA-style commitments on Level Playing Field”.

That means non-binding, unenforceable commitments on environment, tax, competition, employment etc /8

standard Free Trade Agreements the EU has struck with Japan, Canada and others specifically exclude from binding dispute settlement mechanisms, the chapters on level playing fields - this is key negotiating win vs May’s deal claimed in internal memo for Johnson revisions /9

Sam Lowe, @SamuelMarcLowe CER trade fellow, “Level Playing Field commitments in EU’s Free Trade Agreements with Canada & Japan are unenforceable, because they are specifically excluded from dispute settlement mechanisms. The Government appears to be aiming for same treatment” /10

My last thread examining the differences between level playing field commitments in May deal versus Johnson deal..

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1185182594566111232?s=21

Just how binding were the various commitments made under May deal - different mechanisms - all explained in the legal advice document from last year - all gone now... some might reappear later, if UK Govt wants deal:

Before and After:

“Adequate” successfully removed in Revised Political Declaration as description of implementation, enforcement and dispute settlement over common standards for environment, employment, tax, state aid & competition...

FULL STORY on “Level Playing Field” memo for Economic Partnership Steering Group - negotiated removal from Political Declaration of “adequate” to describe enforcement/ dispute settlement on common employment, environment, competition and tax standards: bbc.com/news/business-…