Junk the backstop, Tory MPS tell May
Document includes several ‘wins’ for Theresa May but also sets aside some of the biggest fights for a later day
THERESA MAY’S Brexit deal was yesterday rejected by a string of senior Tory MPS in the Commons as it emerged that half of her backbenchers could vote against it.
The Prime Minister was told by MPS, including Boris Johnson, to “junk” her backstop plan for keeping the Irish border open, which he said “makes a complete nonsense of Brexit”.
Mrs May attempted to rally her MPS after signing off a 26-page future relationship agreement with the EU that commits both sides to an “ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership”, but in the Commons the agreement was attacked by Remainers and Brexiteers.
A total of 87 Tory MPS are publicly opposed to the deal, meaning half of Mrs May’s backbenchers could vote against her plan in the Commons.
One Cabinet minister said they feared it now had “zero” chance of getting through the critical vote next month.
The Prime Minister had to endure nearly 40 minutes of Commons debate before a single supportive intervention from an MP, amid accusations that her deal was a “complete surrender”.
In her address, Mrs May singled out Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader, and Owen Paterson, a former Northern Ireland Secretary, for praise after they proposed using technology in place of the backstop.
However, Mr Duncan Smith said: “None of this is at all workable unless we get the Withdrawal Agreement now amended so that any arrangements we make strip out that backstop.”
Mr Paterson said the backstop meant the “horror of Northern Ireland being split off under a different regime”. The DUP also made clear that the backstop must be scrapped if its 10 MPS were to support the deal. Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, the party’s chief whip, said: “We need to see an end to the backstop and those alternative arrangements put in place.”
The Prime Minister will fly to Brussels tomorrow for talks with Jean Claude-juncker, the European Commission president, before sealing the deal at a summit with EU leaders on Sunday.
It came as Spain accused Britain of “treachery” over Gibraltar under the deal and acting “under the cover of night”. The UK has been accused of introducing a clause that would ensure Gibraltar was covered by a future trade deal negotiated with Brussels.
Pedro Sanchez, Spain’s prime minister, said it would veto the draft deal if no changes are made. “After my conversation with Theresa May, our positions remain far away,” he tweeted.
In a sign of the deepening divides, Gavin Barwell, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, accused Eurosceptic Tory MPS of “straw man tactics”.
On Monday, Mr Barwell and Robbie Gibb, her director of communications, are due to give a presentation to Cabinet about “how to sell the deal”.
Downing Street is expecting Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary, and other senior Eurosceptics including Penny Mordaunt, the International Development Secretary, and Andrea Leadsom, the Leader of the Commons, to support the agreement publicly.
The Telegraph understands that ministers are concerned that appearances on television and radio to endorse Mrs May’s plan will “bind” them to a deal that they have deep concerns about.
‘It makes clear the EU’S “free movement” rules will end after Brexit. Polls show that this remains the single biggest unifying issue for Brexiteers’
THE “political declaration” on the future framework for the EU-UK relationship is condensed into 26 pages of highly aspirational prose and begs many more questions than it answers.
The 174-paragraph document, which is legally non-binding, covers everything from defence cooperation to customs checks, healthcare to fishing rights and sets broad parameters for the multi-sectoral negotiation that will open in Brussels in April next year.
The document deliberately includes a huge “spectrum” of possible outcomes, depending on where politicians draw the line between sovereignty and access to markets, and as such is a mixture of warm and woolly adjectives and hard-edged caveats.
Ireland
“The Parties recall their determination to replace the backstop solution… by a subsequent agreement that establishes alternative arrangements for ensuring the absence of a hard border on the island of Ireland on a permanent footing... Such facilitative arrangements and technologies will also be considered in developing any alternative arrangements for ensuring the absence of a hard border on the island of Ireland on a permanent footing.”
The reference to “facilitative arrangements and technologies” is the big win in this document for Theresa May. For months, Brexiteers have been arguing that technology can deliver an “invisible” border in Northern Ireland without the UK joining a customs union with Europe that would prevent the UK setting its own tariffs and conducting a fully independent trade policy.
This paragraph officially says that the European Commission – which had previously dismissed such maximum facilitation, or “Maxfac”, as “magical thinking” – is now prepared to seriously see whether it can work.
This does not change the fact that the UK has agreed to remain in the backstop “unless and until” this – or something better – comes along.
Free Movement
“Noting that the United Kingdom has decided that the principle of free movement of persons between the Union and the United Kingdom will no longer apply, the Parties should establish mobility arrangements. … [These] will be based on non-discrimination between the Union’s Member States and full reciprocity… In this context, the Parties aim to provide, through their domestic laws, for visa-free travel for short-term visits.”
The second big win for Mrs May in this document is that it makes clear the EU’S “free movement” rules will end after Brexit. Polls show that this remains the single biggest unifying issue for Brexiteers and will be a key “deliverable” on the doorsteps at the next election. The Government has indicated it will introduce a permit system that favours highly skilled migrants and will treat both EU and non-eu citizens equally. The EU can be expected to mirror these arrangements.
At the same time, also on a reciprocal basis, holidaymakers and businessmen will be able to travel across the Channel in both directions on a visa-free basis.
Goods & Customs Union
“The Parties envisage having a trading relationship on goods that is as close as possible, with a view to facilitating the ease of legitimate trade... [It will] build and improve on the single customs territory provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement which obviates the need for checks on rules of origin… [It] will create a free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition.”
There’s one word missing, that might cost Mrs May dear: frictionless. That is because it is clear that the future goods relationship comes with trade-offs.
The plan should include zero tariffs on goods and no limits on the quantity of imports or exports from either side. Industry will be pleased that costly checks on how much of a product comes from where – so-called “rules of origin” checks – look set to be avoided, but there are caveats. The amount of border checks comes down to the how closely the UK commits to align itself with EU rules.
As it stands, it also aims to avoid cumbersome checks on food and labelling, which could present big problems for supermarkets, by treating each other as “single entities” for these standards. Promising to explore how the UK can cooperate with key EU agencies, including the oversight of medicines, is also significant.
Services & Investment
“The Parties should conclude ambitious, comprehensive and balanced arrangements on trade in services and investment in services and non-services sectors, respecting each Party’s right to regulate…[aiming] to deliver a level of liberalisation in trade in services well beyond the Parties’ World Trade Organisation (WTO) commitments and building on recent Union Free Trade Agreements (FTAS).”
There’s a clear commitment to a comprehensive deal on services. But the provisions for financial services do not go as far as the City had hoped in winning special treatment on so-called “equivalence” – the way in which the EU checks non-eu country standards. Instead, the UK still faces the risk of its “equivalence” status being unilaterally withdrawn with just 30 days’ notice, should UK regulation or activities be found problematic by the EU.
Each party can use “their ability to take equivalence decisions in their own interest” and the withdrawal of approval from both sides would be subject to “appropriate consultation”. The detail of that process is crucial in terms of working out how secure the UK’S access to the EU market might be.
Mutual recognition of professional qualifications is laid out. Having it “baked in” rather than as a separate framework potentially takes the agreement beyond the Eu-canada deal.
There are also some broad-brush plans for collaboration between regulators, and a deal on data sharing.
The politically sensitive area of market access for audio-visual services – which includes broadcasting – has been omitted or “carved out” to allow it to be squabbled over separately.
Planes and trains
“The Parties should ensure passenger and cargo air connectivity through a Comprehensive Air Transport Agreement (CATA) … [and] agree that bilateral arrangements should be established, as appropriate, for cross-border rail services ... such as the Belfast-dublin Enterprise Line and services through the Channel Tunnel.”
The planes and trains will be kept running smoothly. The Channel Tunnel, a key nexus for EU-UK trade, and the Belfast-dublin line that underpins the peace process are intentionally singled out.
‘The provisions for financial services do not go as far as the City had hoped in winning special treatment’
Fishing
“The Parties should cooperate bilaterally and internationally to ensure fishing at sustainable levels, [and] will work closely with other coastal states and in international forums, including to manage shared stocks ... Within the context of the overall economic partnership the Parties should establish a new fisheries agreement on, inter alia, access to waters and quota shares... [this should be in place] by 1 July 2020.”
The politically explosive issue of fishing quotas is “parked” – which is a win for Mrs May – but only until July 2020. This is the point during the transition period when the UK will need to make hard choices on whether to ratify parts of a trade deal if possible, agree to extend the transition period for one or two years, or invoke the Irish backstop.
Mrs May has promised to rebuild British fishing communities after Brexit by leaving the Common Fisheries Policy and reclaiming fishing quotas. However, some Scottish MPS warned that sovereignty over UK waters might be “sacrificed for a trade deal” when the heat is turned up in the negotiations.
France and Spain have already made clear they want to retain status quo access to UK waters. If not, they will cut off access to EU markets for British fishermen, who sell some 80-90 per cent of species like herring and mackerel to Europe. This is a huge fight that has been put off for another day.
Defence and Security
“The economic partnership will also provide for appropriate general exceptions, including in relation to security... The Parties support ambitious, close and lasting cooperation on external action to protect citizens from external threats... including through the United Nations and Nato… The Parties should exchange intelligence on a timely and voluntary basis as appropriate, in particular in the field of counter-terrorism, hybrid threats and cyber-threats.”
While both sides get to preserve their “strategic autonomy”, the document sets out a broad defence cooperation framework, but with the caveat that cooperation can only continue to “the extent possible under the conditions of Union law”. Given the constraints of ECJ oversight, this may practically exclude the UK from more sensitive parts of joint EU defence projects. There is also a commitment to share information on certain crimefighting and anti-terror databases including on DNA and passengers. There is no mention of the European arrest warrant, but there is a commitment to “surrender suspected and convicted persons efficiently and expeditiously”.
ECJ & Governance
“The Parties agree the scale and scope of future arrangements should achieve an appropriate balance between rights and obligations – the closer and deeper the partnership the stronger the accompanying obligations... Should a dispute raise a question of interpretation of Union law, which may also be indicated by either Party, the arbitration panel should refer the question to the CJEU [ECJ] as the sole arbiter of Union law, for a binding ruling.”
Having initially promised to entirely remove the UK from the jurisdiction of the ECJ – a key bugbear of Brexiteers who want to “take back control” of lawmaking – the reality is more nuanced.
These paragraphs make explicit the trade-offs involved, and that “ambitious, comprehensive” deals in goods and services will entail a bigger role for the ECJ. In practice, this means that where the UK chooses to follow EU laws and regulations, it must accept that sole interpreter of EU law is the ECJ. A lot of Brexiteers will not like this, but the reality is that this will be the price of a deep EU-UK deal.
Next steps?
“The Parties commit to engage in regular dialogue and to establish robust, efficient and effective arrangements for its management... and for the resolution of disputes and enforcement based on the arrangements provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement, in full respect of their own legal orders... the Parties will convene a high level conference at least every six months.”
The final part of the document is designed to reassure Brexiteers that the European side will not drag its feet to build pressure in the negotiation.
This commits to draw up a “formal schedule” and negotiate the deals “in parallel”, rather than sequentially or one at a time.
‘France and Spain have already made clear they want to retain status quo access to UK waters. If not, they will cut off access to EU markets for British fishermen’