PM accuses EU over ‘onerous’ trade deal
Brussels is still treating the UK like a subservient state. But on trade, London is the one calling the shots
Boris Johnson has accused the EU of trying to impose on Britain a more “onerous” trade deal than it has with other countries. The Prime Minister told Brussels to show some “respect” as he questioned why it had appreciated the autonomy of other major countries such as Canada and Japan but was offering Britain a worse trade deal, using its proximity as an excuse. No10 also warned that Britain’s fishing waters were off-limits in trade negotiations due to start next week.
BORIS JOHNSON has told the EU to show Britain “respect” after accusing Brussels of offering the UK a more “onerous” trade deal than it has other countries.
Downing Street also said Britain’s fishing waters were off-limits in the trade negotiations, which will begin next week, as clear battle lines were drawn between the two sides.
Brussels published its mandate for the negotiations yesterday, in which it demanded that Britain sign up to EU rules and standards – overseen by the European Court of Justice – in return for a free-trade agreement.
Mr Johnson will set out his own “red lines” tomorrow, but has already made it clear the EU has woefully misjudged what Britain is prepared to accept.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “We will not accept any demands for the UK to follow EU law, just as we would not expect the EU to follow UK laws. The EU has respected the autonomy of other major economies around the world such as Canada and Japan when signing trade deals with them. We just want the same.”
No10 accused the EU of making up bogus reasons for offering Britain a worse deal than it has offered other trading partners – in particular the UK’S proximity to Europe, which, according to Brussels, makes Britain a threat if it is not reined in.
Mr Johnson’s spokesman said: “The EU offered the US zero tariffs without
‘The UK didn’t vote twice to take back control of its fishing waters only to give that control up again’
the legal oversight that they have put in today’s mandate.
“They are trying to use our proximity as an argument for making us abide by their rules, but proximity was not a factor in free-trade agreements between countries like the US and Canada, or Australia and New Zealand. They did not seek to impose the sort of onerous commitments that the EU is now seeking to impose on the UK.”
Writing in today’s Daily Telegraph, Sir Robbie Gibb, the former Downing Street head of communications, says the EU is mistakenly treating the UK as an “exiting country” that can be treated differently from other third parties, because it has not yet “clocked” that Britain has already left. Downing Street also made it clear that the EU is mistaken if it thinks Britain will allow it access to fishing waters as part of a deal.
The EU mandate calls for the retention of existing quotas, which give EU countries about 70 per cent of the fish landed in UK waters. The EU’S chief negotiator Michel Barnier said fishing rights must be included in the deal or there “won’t be any agreement at all”.
But the Prime Minister’s spokesman said: “The UK didn’t vote twice to take back control of its fishing waters only to give that control up again. It doesn’t matter what the EU puts in its mandate as we become an independent coastal state on December 31 2020.
“Any access by non-uk vessels to fish in UK waters will be for us to determine. EU fishing rights will not be part of the negotiation.” The 46-page document setting out the EU’S negotiating mandate points to other key flashpoints in the coming negotiation, which is due to take place in highly compressed two or three-week cycles, alternating between London and Brussels.
The level playing field
On trade, the EU is aiming for a deal that creates a “free trade area” with “no tariffs” or “quantitative restrictions” limiting the amount of goods that can enter the EU single market tariff-free.
The EU will only offer that deal “provided a level playing field is ensured” so British companies cannot undercut European companies unfairly.
EU officials say that in practice, this means that where the UK wants a deep and close trading relationship with the EU, it needs to commit to upholding EU current standards on areas like climate change, tax and state aid.
This demand is at odds with Mr Johnson’s speech in Greenwich earlier this month when he said that the UK does not seek “alignment of any kind”.
Agricultural rules
Related to this is a new EU demand – added at the request of the French – that the desire for a “level playing field” should include “product sanitary quality in the agricultural and food sector”.
This is saying the EU will not do a full trade deal with the UK unless the British government commits not to lowering standards on, say, battery chicken farming, pesticide usage or other techniques that might cheapen UK food production and undercut EU standards.
Northern Ireland Protocol
As part of the Brexit “divorce” deal, the UK agreed a Northern Ireland “frontstop” that leaves the province following EU rules on customs, state aid and VAT and requires a customs border to be created in the Irish Sea. Already there are concerns in Brussels that the UK will backslide on the border’s creation.
Simon Coveney, the Irish deputy prime minister, warned that if the UK failed to build the necessary infrastructure it would “significantly” damage the prospects of being able to agree “even a bare-bones trade agreement”.
Dispute resolution
One possible way the EU might relax its level playing-field demands might be to agree a dispute resolution mechanism that reassures Brussels the EU can protect itself against any British attempts to unfairly undercut their businesses. The mandate posits an “overall governance mechanism” that will enable both sides to take quick retaliatory measures against each other. But the UK wants a series of separate agreements covering different parts of the deal.
The battle lines have been drawn and on Monday our lead negotiator, David Frost, will head to Brussels for the first round of talks to agree our future relationship with the EU. Ministers at the EU’S General Affairs Council in Brussels yesterday signed off Michel Barnier’s mandate for these talks – offering the UK a no-tariffs and no-quotas deal, but only in return for guarantees the UK will follow some EU rules. The UK’S own negotiating position has been signed off by Cabinet and will be presented to Parliament and published tomorrow.
But you don’t need to wait until then to understand the UK’S position. It’s all laid out in the Conservative manifesto.
The Government has a strong mandate to take back control and it is this principle that will guide Mr Frost during the talks. The UK wants to secure a good trade deal with the EU but not at the expense of taking back control. That means it will not concede to any jurisdiction by the European courts, it will not trade away control over UK fishing waters and, most importantly, it will not agree to a “level playing field” with the EU which involves keeping our rules and regulations in lock step with theirs.
As No 10 made plain in a series of tweets yesterday, the EU rightly wants to safeguard its own legal autonomy, it rightly respects the autonomy of other major economies around the world – the UK just wants the same. We didn’t vote to take back control only to give it away at the negotiating table.
Critics claim the Government’s position is a fig leaf that masks a desire to drive down environmental standards and workers’ rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Government could not have been clearer that it has no intention of lowering standards in either area. Here, it is the UK that has led the way and the EU that has trailed behind.
On maternity leave, the UK offers a year with the option to share parental leave, while the EU minimum is just 14 weeks. We will take no lectures from the EU on environmental protections.
We were the first country to introduce legally binding emission reduction targets and the first major economy to sign up to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
And the idea that the UK must sign up to level-playing-field commitments beyond what is in place with other third-country trade deals with the EU is frankly ridiculous.
The EU still seems to treat the UK like an exiting country trying to negotiate the terms of its withdrawal. It has not quite clocked that the UK has already left. We are a third party wanting to do a deal with the EU, not applying to remain in its legal orbit.
When Japan, the US or any other country has negotiated with the EU, they are treated as independent nation states. There is never any question of those countries having to follow EU rules and regulations – so why is the EU demanding the UK does just that?
The UK will approach these talks as the constitutional equals of the EU, not some subservient entity. We have the political will and the mandate to hold firm on our three guiding principles
– to determine our own rules and regulations, to control our own fishing waters and to make our own laws. The EU has offered these terms to other countries as part of a quota-free and tariff-free relationship. So why not us?
The EU argues the UK is different because of its proximity and the volume of our trade but this misses the point: the existing provisions in other agreements would be sufficient. They would allow the EU to restrict trade if the UK engaged in unfair competition.
The EU should dispense with the pretence that it is trying to safeguard our environmental standards and workers’ rights – we have those covered. This is about safeguarding its own institutions and principles. It is a political choice by the EU to try and gain some competitive advantage – perfectly valid in trade negotiations but not a necessity to have a fair deal.
Time is short when talks begin next week and the EU should not waste it pushing bogus arguments and creating pointless hurdles. They will not be able to run down the clock – the Prime Minister has been clear he will not extend the transition period. By January 1 2021, we will either have a trade deal or we will trade with the EU under WTO terms. So the EU has a choice to make. It can carry on making demands of the UK that it has not made of any other independent country, or it can move forward in a positive and pragmatic way.