Wednesday 7 February 2018

EU TRANSITION PERIOD GUIDELINES

The EU's guidelines for negotiations on the transition period have been published (HERE) and show signs of the EU's growing confidence that they have the upper hand. It looks fearsomely complicated and couched in legal terms with frequent references to treaty articles and other EU legal text. Only a lawyer would be comfortable with it I think.

It is being covered by the media as punishing the UK since it seeks to cut-off access to the single market if we don't follow the rules. But I'm not sure what the EU are supposed to do. If we object to some aspect of EU law during the transition and they apply to the ECJ, it may take longer than the transition period to obtain a ruling. This can't be right. So, if a ruling might take too long, the EU reserve the right to take unilateral action.


Already Jacob Rees-Mogg has said it is not acceptable - although he is only an MP and has no official power he is chairman of the ERG, the Conservatives Brexiteer's special forces and he carries some weight.

The government has a choice. Argue and try to negotiate or accept it quickly, face down the Brextremists and get on with the trade negotiations. If we argue, more precious time will slip by and the timetable, already incredibly compressed, will become all but impossible. Indeed, many think it is already far too tight. We will not get a full blown trade agreement by March 2019, everybody outside No 10 Downing Street knows that. But the more time we waste now, the less is available for all the hundreds of other detailed issues that need to be settled by October this year. The ridiculous time consuming election last year looks even more stupid now that it did then.

The EU knows we desperately need the transitional period even in Rees-Mogg and the other nutters don't. They actually believe we can walk away at the end of March 2019 and begin trading on WTO terms. This would be catastrophic for industry, for supply chains, for the government itself in terms of preparedness for new customs arrangements and for travellers. No government could knowingly allow it to happen, could it?