Ahead of a crucial week in Brexit talks, issue of level playing field (beyond state aid) has become a major obstacle to a deal. Especially around evolution/ratchet clauses. Both sides have got themselves into an ideological corner & are struggling to get out. Thread explaining 1/
The evolution/ratchet clause would mean that if both sides increased their levels of regulation in these areas (environmental, workers rights etc.) in the future this would become the new bar for non-regression. Helping to avoid a gap opening up between the two sides. 2/
Both sides have adopted very ideological positions when in reality this approach makes little difference in practice. On the UK side, the approach in the original EU draft suggests this evolution could only happen if both sides agreed. i.e. UK would have a veto. 3/
However, the underlying concern may be that a future UK government could agree to increase the non-regression bar & then this could not be undone. But the reality is that a future UK govt could do this anyway. It doesn't need a specific clause. 4/
Any UK govt will be able to agree additional things with the EU, either by amending the treaty or adding to it. There is no way to stop this. So their opposition is over the top. In the end this will be a living agreement whether they like it or not. It has to be to be durable 5/
The EU position is equally ideological & hypothetical. These types of regulations evolve over many years & decades. The prospect of a real material gap opening up in the next 10 years is slim to none. This is not an issue that has to be solved now. 6/
Furthermore, if the UK does have a veto over whether the bar for non-regression is raised, then a Conservative govt is unlikely to ever agree. Meanwhile, as set out above a Labour govt could do so regardless of this clause. 7/
If it does seek to bind the UK without a veto, then that is just another form of dynamic alignment which the EU has already accepted is not a reasonable ask on level playing field in an FTA. 8/
The EU has the additional problem that it already offered significantly more market access in T May's NI backstop (a full customs union) with essentially non-enforceable non regression in these areas of level playing field. 9/
The EU may argue this was temporary, but the whole problem was that it wasn't. If there was a way out it would have been approved. The reality is, there was always a very real risk it would be permanent, the EU knew that & indeed liked that feature as secure the NI/ROI issues 10/
All in all both sides have adopted slightly ridiculous hard line ideological positions on evolution/ratchet clauses which in reality don't matter & make little difference. Both sides should be pragmatic & accept this fact to find a deal. 11/ ENDS
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
