1. Dear @DavidGHFrost I am deeply concerned that if this article in the @DailyMirror is true that you are endangering our negotiation.
Let me explain why (Thread)
Let me explain why (Thread)
2. Apparently. you claimed we’re not asking for anything unique, and this isn’t necessarily true because the Canadian template which is on the table is not one the EU usually wants to use for neighbourhood countries.
3. The EU has a neighbourhood policy, and they use a different template, however, the EU have agreed we can have a Canadian deal.
4. The important thing to note, however, is the Canadian deal is a template for a bespoke deal, and not CETA.
5. I thought this was general EU knowledge, so imagine my surprise when the EU stated we couldn’t have a deal exactly the same CETA and Number 10 demonstrated that they hadn’t taken the time to understand the basics of EU trade policy.
6. It is important for them to understand, therefore, that being offered a Canadian deal for a country this close is both a unique ask, and it is what we are being offered.
7. Now, according to the article, you claim that the EU has asked more than it has from other sovereign countries.
8. In trade deal negotiations that is a particularly strange complaint, because every country that does trade deals seeks to get better market access than their previous trade deals.
We aren't going to be doing any deals with any country if this is a red line.
We aren't going to be doing any deals with any country if this is a red line.
9. It is then reported that you had claimed that the EU had never asked for rights to fishing waters before.
10. Now I’m not judging, because it was a long time ago, but the EEC did definitely ask for continued access to Greenland’s waters, and the UK were one of the countries demanding that they secure it. (And they did)
11. It would be fair to say that the memberstates have always asked for continued access to the fishing waters of a departing memberstate and it would be hypocritical to now take offence.
12. You are also said to have complained about the LPF not being part of existing deals, but this isn’t true either.
13. The EU have specifically provided an example text of the LPF mechanism, which involves a commitment, a council and an alignment process.
14. Here is the exact same process in a neighbourhood deal that was signed by the Ukraine, a nation that can claim to be a sovereign nation.
15. Here it is again in the Georgia deal, because it is part of the Ukrainian deal template.
(Georgia, is also a sovereign country)
(Georgia, is also a sovereign country)
16. The difference between the UK offer and these countries is that Ukraine and Georgia’s alignment relate to many different areas of policy described in Annexes, whereas the EU are asking it for a limited subset in our deal.
17. It is, therefore, not true to claim that the EU has never asked this of a sovereign country, or that it goes further than what it has asked.
18. The crucial thing to realise is that the EU *know* they have asked for fishing water before, and they *know* what they have offered to other countries.
19. With Michel Barnier suggesting that trust is key to this negotiation, how trusting should he be of a country who is taking a stand on things which he knows are simply untrue?
20. If you really want to reject LPF then you are going to have to come up with some arguments that have some bearing in fact, not fiction, or there will be no trust.
21. Because today, if this article is true, the message we are sending as a country is either that we are ignorant, or we are liars, and that has to stop if we want a deal, or indeed, to retain our self-respect as a country.
/End
/End
