Jean-Claude Piris is not a household name in Britain. He's described as the Director-General of the Legal Service (270 officials including 130 lawyers) which provides oral and written advice to the EU Council of Ministers and the committees preparing its work, which helps in drafting EU law, and which acts as the Council’s advocate before EU Courts. He is THE expert on EU affairs. Yesterday he tweeted some fascinating comments about the Norway-then-Canada proposal doing the rounds at the moment.
Unfortunately, M. Piris puts the kibosh on the whole idea which would have had the UK joining EFTA then the EEA on a temporary basis while we decided exactly what it is we want along the lines of a Canada style FTA. This is his tweet:
Unfortunately, M. Piris puts the kibosh on the whole idea which would have had the UK joining EFTA then the EEA on a temporary basis while we decided exactly what it is we want along the lines of a Canada style FTA. This is his tweet:
In successive tweets, he goes on to say:THREAD 1/ Some comments on Nick Boles’proposal « Norway For Now »#@NickBoles,#@Simon_Nixon, #StephenFidler1, #@pmdfoster— Jean-Claude PIRIS (@piris_jc) 26 October 2018
2/ This could not be « a new transition », as neither EFTA nor EEA are open to a temporary membership and I doubt their members would accept such a change
3/ On top of that, due to the fact that there would not be an actual period of transition, UK would fall in cliff edge and a backstop would be necessary because EEA does not allow custom union with EU and does not provide EU single market on agriculture.
4/ Calendar: It would be impossible to get a Norway model status « on 29th March 2019 », as U.K. candidacies to both organisations could not be negotiated before that date (art 217 TFEU).
5/ EFTA, EEA and agreements on EFTA Surveillance Authority and Court of Justice are not « 0ff-the-shelf ». These agreements necessarily need to be opened and negotiated on a number of points for a new accession. Ratifications by 30 States and the EU will have to follow.
6/ Waiting for conclusion and entry into force (or even provisional application) of these acceding treaties, the U.K. will not be able to avoid the cliff edge and the normal WTO rules (absence of transition period).
7/ Britain maintaining continuity in its customs arrangements », ie to remain in the EU Customs union, would be incompatible with article 56(3) EFTA Convention, which binds acceding members to become party to the FTAs concluded by EFTA Members.
8/ Following that absence of CU with EU, the backstop on the Irish border issue would remain absolutely necessary.
In short, he agrees with Sir Ivan Rogers who, in his Cambridge speech, said, "But even leaving aside the legal objections, which I will not rehearse, there is no earthly reason for either the EU27 or the EEA to agree to such a deal".
EFTA, the EU27 and the EEA won't allow it and even if they could be persuaded, it would not resolve the Irish border issue because we would be prevented from joining the customs union and border checks (as per Norway/Sweden) would still be needed.
This also seems to kibosh flexcit the central idea of Dr Richard North of the EU Referendum blog.
What does this mean? Slowly the possible options are being blocked. If we can assume that Chequers is dead, and I think we can, there are now only three possible outcomes:
- A Canada style FTA
- No deal
- Remaining in the EU
Since the first two, although much favoured by the Brexiteers, would cause serious damage to our economy, the last one may be the only way out of the omnishambles. It may all come down to the majority of MPs who prefer close ties with the EU. If the only options are actual membership or a much more distant and damaging relationship that can only be detrimental to trade, perhaps remaining in the EU may be the one they choose - after a people's vote.
