What have we learnt from UK & EU today - not all that much new. But contrary to much of last phase, both sides on the same page about end goal – a fairly standard FTA. But there are key points of difference, some bridgeable others more difficult. A thread on my personal views 1/
Unlike discussions over Chequers proposals or Mansion House speech the two sides are broadly on the same page. The aim for this year is to secure a pretty standard FTA combined with a few other agreements. At least the two sides are not talking past each other 2/
But there are big differences. Level playing field is key one. UK fundamentally rejects EU’s premise that additional requirements needed in this area due to volume of trade & proximity. I believe UK govt would rather accept tariffs than submit to some of EU’s requests here 3/
To be fair, I think the UK government has a point here. A FTA provides for checks and documentation on trade, providing mechanisms to ensure products which undercut the single market do not enter (unlike a customs union say)...4/
There are also provisions to allow retaliatory measures & maybe even cross cutting suspension of agreements. Why more onerous LPF is needed here isn’t really clear from a practical perspective 5/
Of course, the EU may simply say, this is the cost of doing business with us and being a third country. Which I guess is fair enough. As we have long seen, on both sides, this negotiation isn’t just about pure economics or pragmatic thinking, it is inherently political 6/
Differences on structure of agreements, UK wants a suite & EU wants a single one, will also cause problems. As will governance of these agreements. But a suite of agreements inside a loose framework may not look too different from a single one, so this seems manageable to me 7/
The issue of a role for ECJ is actually more about locus of EU law & links back to LPF. EU wants UK to follow EU rules on state aid & not regress in other areas. As such that requires understanding definition of EU law in these areas which requires ECJ in EU's view... 8/
But UK doesn’t want any of that, & without it, the FTA is not about EU law at all, therefore there is no need for ECJ. Therefore, fight less likely to be about role for ECJ directly but about what locus EU law has in the FTA, which will be determined mostly by the LPF outcome 9/
On fish, there should be a logical/obvious landing zone in between the desire for annual negotiations and a long term settlement…but of course as noted above, the driving force is not always rationality and pragmatism. Especially in this area 10/
Where does all that leave us? I think we can already see the broad outlines of a deal in most areas but the path to get there requires bridging some big divides. I also think some of the hard line positions on both sides are more than just posturing 11/
One of the side effects of aiming for a fairly standard FTA is that the difference between that and no agreement is reduced, meaning the price either side is willing to pay for it may well be lower 12/ ENDS
