Thread by @GeorgePeretzQC

Some other comments on @JGForsyth’s piece.

https://twitter.com/davidheniguk/status/1337095623980539905

On subsidy control, it’s critical to remember that the EU has accepted that the UK can apply its own subsidy regime not “EU State aid rules”. Since the Tories promised such a regime during the GE, that should be acceptable.

This is a soluble problem. A clause or side letter could record that the EU has no objection to the UK granting aid to compensate businesses for Covid losses or to restart the economy.

The problem is a fake one anyway: neither State aid rules nor a domestic subsidy control regime will prevent such subsidies (subject to checks on necessity and effectiveness).

Reminder: the UK is not now being asked to follow EU state aid rules. And a well-designed UK subsidy regime will allow subsidies for big projects of public importance. And if the EU is doing the same no arbitration in the world is going to find against the UK for doing it.

It is, also, a largely fake problem. And to the extent that it’s real, soluble by an EU statement that it won’t object to the UK subsidising things it itself is subsidising.

Finally, this. Like @DavidHenigUK, I thought that that was, pretty much, the EU offer. Smoke and mirrors, of course: but as David says, this may be a straw in the wind (this will be what is agreed and Forsyth’s article will be waved as proof that the UK got what it wanted).

My conclusion from Forsyth’s article is that if these are really the problems here, it is hard to see that they can’t be solved, with goodwill (which may be the problem, of course).

Footnote: I know about fishing. I have no expertise there. But like others, I can’t see that agreement won’t happen just because of fish, when a relatively small amount of €€ and ££ could buy off unhappiness with a deal.