Unsurprisingly little or no progress in the talks this week. As I said last round, both sides are being unrealistic in their positions in places. But this below from @MichelBarnier is fundamentally incorrect & very misleading. (I will come onto UK issues in the thread as well) 1/
Zero tariff/zero quota agreement is nowhere near the same as membership of the single market. As nearly all economic analysis of Brexit shows, the largest impact comes from customs admin/delays, rules of origin & non-tariff barriers. UK will face all these, members do not. 2/
Barnier also implied the UK was rejected any level playing field. I don't think this is the case, the UK is simply seeking LPF more in line with precedent. 3/
Barnier argued the EU is looking forward not back on LPF Fair enough. But that still doesn't explain its approach on state aid. If it plans to require all FTA partners to align with EU state aid rules, it will never strike another FTA. 4/
As I've explained before then, these are political demands on the EU's part. Entirely valid for them to make, but they are not a technical requirement to stop undercutting, there are more standard approaches that can do this. 5/
A fairer criticism which he makes is that the UK keeps claiming it is just asking for CETA. Barnier is right that in a number of areas the UK is seeking to go beyond existing agreements (tariffs/quotas, road haulage, mutual recognition for example). 6/
Furthermore, just because there is precedent in one agreement or another for certain parts, they have never all been combined into a single agreement. So this is again a fair point from the EU which shows the UK is asking for more then usual. 7/
Barnier also accused the UK of still not accepting the consequences of Brexit. Again there is some truth here, especially on security cooperation. But it is just as true of the EU in some ways, especially on LPF and fishing. 8/
Final thought for now, Barnier spoke of NI protocol being a lasting solution. For this to be the case it needs to legally sound, politically sensitive & economically viable. Neither sides approach really seems to fully fit these requirements (from what we know of them) 9/ ENDS
