Thread by @pmdfoster

This story is important, not because of what it means for #coronavirusuk now, but because it shows the crazy places that an ultra-ideological position about role of EU law in future #Brexit talks can lead - and where expert advice is flatly rejected.

Let me explain 1/thread

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1234242149530656768

Back in February (the 7th) the NHS Confederation @NHSConfed put out a statement warning that failure to maintain links with EU health bodies could heighten #coronavirus risk /2

nhsconfed.org/news/2020/02/b…

@NHSConfed Niall Dickson @NHSC_Niall the chief executive of @NHSConfed explicitly warned: “It is in all our interests to maintain these vital links between the UK and the EU not least because working together we are more likely to trace and tackle serious outbreaks effectively." /3

@NHSConfed @NHSC_Niall Two days later @NHSConfed - the body that represents the entire health services, along with its Brexit Health Alliance, which includes patient and research groups, issued a Briefing Paper setting out what it mean by that co-operation. Wort a quick read./4 nhsconfed.org/-/media/Confed…

@NHSConfed @NHSC_Niall Among the bodies that the @NHSConfed *explicitly* said UK should target continued links with was the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control Early Warning and Response System (EWRS) /5

ecdc.europa.eu/en/early-warni…

@NHSConfed @NHSC_Niall This is a information sharing system, set up in 1988, that proved its worth in Sars, Ebola, Bird 'Flu etc. I am not a doctor or epidemiologist, but clearly the profession believes EWRS to be a valuable and important tool /6

@NHSConfed @NHSC_Niall Indeed @NHSC_Niall could NOT have been more explicit: "public health is *at risk* in a number of areas if health is *not made a priority in the forthcoming negotiations with the EU*." /7

So was health made a "priority" when the UK negotiation mandate was published, 20 days later on February 27?

It doesn't seem so - EVEN THOUGH the message, per Whitehall sources, DID get through to @MattHancock in Dept of Health who asked to make EWRS access a target of talks /8

Per source to me: “The Department of Health pitched for continued access to the EWRS to be an objective of the negotiations, but it was blocked because they didn’t want to be accused of seeking more than the basic Canada deal.” /9

What actually appeared in UK negotiation mandate - with which UK negotiators are now armed in Brussels as talks start today under David Frost - was a single paragraph say UK was "open to exploring cooperation" in "narrowly defined areas" - per source, that's NOT = EWRS /10

The Govt - per @Jack_Blanchard_ in his @POLITICOEurope London Playbook does not deny this - it hardly can, since the absence of ambition in the mandate makes it obvious, but it tries to dismiss the issue by saying that Italy and France have more cases than UK, despite EWRS/11

@Jack_Blanchard_ @POLITICOEurope But the point here, is that the expert advice from @NHSConfed was super clear. I asked over weekend to speak to @NHSC_Niall or someone from the group to explain further, but they declined, referring me to their briefing paper. I defer to their expertise /12

@Jack_Blanchard_ @POLITICOEurope @NHSConfed @NHSC_Niall What about the argument that, in areas of "mutual self-interest" the EU will defo find a way, one way or another, to share this kind of information after #Brexit and all this is just scaremongering and point-scoring? Well, aside from expert requests above.. /13

@Jack_Blanchard_ @POLITICOEurope @NHSConfed @NHSC_Niall It is worth noting that in January the Swiss govt was desperate to join EWRS as #CornavirusOutbreak got going, and was granted access (as they were during Ebola) BUT warned that this kind of 'ad hoc' arrangement was unsatisfactory /14

@Jack_Blanchard_ @POLITICOEurope @NHSConfed @NHSC_Niall Per Daniel Koch, head of the communicable diseases unit at the Swiss Federal Department of Health on EWRS ad hoc access: “What it shows now is that when a crisis starts, it’s a little bit late to put us in, it takes too much time.” /15

reuters.com/article/us-chi…

@Jack_Blanchard_ @POLITICOEurope @NHSConfed @NHSC_Niall As that report notes, the Swiss experience, "could serve as a warning to Britain as it prepares to leave the EU while keeping trade ties to the bloc." - which is to say the EU and its legal service and culture of political arm-twisting might make EWRS access a tough ask /16

@Jack_Blanchard_ @POLITICOEurope @NHSConfed @NHSC_Niall But that is moot, because apparently the UK is not even going to *try* and retain access to these kinds of sharing mechanisms because it only wants Canada-level, or Australian-level access to the EU - even both of those countries are a LONG LONG WAY AWAY /17

@Jack_Blanchard_ @POLITICOEurope @NHSConfed @NHSC_Niall Again, perhaps UK Govt has a better idea, tho by nature pandemics require multi-lateral engagement.

Perhaps the 'experts' (the ones @michaelgove thinks we've had quite enough of) don't know what they're talking about? Tho doesn't seem like Dept of Health agrees with that. /18

The broader point is that this appraoch applies to a massive range of issues in coming #Brexit process.

Where external experts, industry leaders and civil servants (who generally like fact-based conversations) advance their expertise, but are rebuffed in the name of ideology /19

There are a LOT of other areas where this logic - or rather say anti-logic - is being applied.

I think we know #Brexit is, initally at least, going to make us poorer. It seems it may, over time, make us sicker too if @NHSConfed warnings are to be taken seriously. ENDS