I don’t think that it’s sustainable for the EU to say (if that’s what it is saying) that COVID subsidies *granted by the EU* don’t fall under the subsidy control provisions of the UK FTA while equivalent UK subsidies do.
I don’t follow the “it would require a change in the Treaties” line: the EU is competent to enter into trade agreements that impose international obligations on it not to exercise Treaty powers in certain ways. Eg GATT.
Nor do I understand the “we can’t allow the UK to block us” line. All that is being proposed is that the UK could impose tariffs (subject to any arbitration/conciliation) mechanism if it objects to what the EU is doing.
To coin a phrase, the EU’s sovereignty is not infringed just because a third country can take action if it doesn’t like what the EU is doing.
If the EU wants to be free to grant COVID aid without risking UK retaliation, then a better course would be to allow the UK a mirror exemption from retaliation, applying to all subsidies that fall within the EU scheme.
NB that the UK concern about this reflects an important truth: it is in the UK’s interests to have some ability to respond to EU subsidies - subsidy control is (or ought to be) a UK offensive, and not just a defensive interest.
And standard disclaimer: all commentary on what is being discussed is looking through a glass darkly.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
About 100 years ago, Attorneys General frequently appeared in big criminal trials - and was obliged to prosecute all poisoning cases personally. He (always he, of course) would also represent the government in important civil cases.
Brit Farm is an organic family farm. Family members hold all the shares in Brit Farm Ltd (BFL) which holds the farm as a secure tenancy from EuroCollective Ltd (EC). EC is jointly owned by a collective of 28 organic farms, all of which are tenants with EC as the freeholder.
Like all the farms, BFL has the right to buy the freehold and leave the EC collective.
Very large numbers of international treaties require the UK to make, or not make, law. The UN Treaty requires us to impose sanctions. The Antarctic Treaty requires us to prohibit unlicensed operators organising tours to Antarctica. GATT restricts our ability to set tariffs.
@SBarrettBar appears to think that such provisions do not infringe his definition of “sovereignty”, but he fails to explain why not.
The first concealed rational answer is that, in a negotiation, you may want to try to force your counterparty to offer better terms by saying that you will walk if you don’t get them.
And you may say that even if, faced with the choice between currently offered terms and walking away, you’d be mad to walk away.
It doesn’t use the useless word “abusive”. But my point that “the EU in the Joint Committee” doesn’t decide what Article 10 means stands: that is for the Court of Justice, as provided for by Article 12.
As to reference to “hypothetical, presumed, or without a genuine and direct link”: it adds nothing. (Would any court ever hold that a hypothetical, presumed, or non-genuine effect was enough?).
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.