According to an article in The Times yesterday, the EU is "ready to back down" on its call for more fishing rights. It's behind a pay-wall but you can read it HERE. The piece is by a Bruno Waterfield in Brussels and quotes 'senior sources' in the EU. It's hard to know what to make of it, given what Barnier himself has said over the past six months or so. It claims Barnier has struggled to gain "attention" from European capitals against the pandemic.
The source also said Barnier has conceded the mandate on fisheries is a "maximalist" position and the EU will need to shift on it. But France, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands are strongly behind the mandate so any movement is likely to be small.
The article says:
"Mr Barnier faces a problem with his mandate on fisheries that, because of demands supported by President Macron, effectively require Britain to offer European fishermen the same access to British waters as required by EU membership. 'We should probably get more realistic about our fishing position,' a senior European diplomatic source said. 'These are the things that have to be decided at a much higher level than Frost or Barnier. The pandemic is destroying everything in the sense that everybody’s mind is focused on something totally different to Brexit, which is the recovery in the exit strategy'."
I don't entirely discount the report, The Times is a respected newspaper after all, but I don't know Bruno Waterfield and attach more weight to a Tweet by David Henig, who is a expert on trade negotiations, in response to David Davis:
If the EU are ready to 'back down' I suspect we have backed much further down, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense.For how long are we expected to continue hearing this nonsense? https://t.co/iqe8y5vavR— David Henig (@DavidHenigUK) May 18, 2020
Our legal texts are set to finally be made public this week, two months after the EU published their full text. We will be able to see precisely what we are asking for. There will probably be a few shocks in it which is why we have been so coy about it all.
The Times reports says British officials close to the talks claim Mr Barnier knows he has a problem and is not getting the attention needed because of Covid-19. Many of the quotes from our side sound like wishful thinking for a domestic audience, or in Frost's case, for his employer:
“[Barnier]’s doing a good job with the hand he’s been given,” Mr Frost said last Friday after a round of talks. “He must know that the mandate is unnegotiable in at least some important areas.”
Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, said he hoped that the EU would review Mr Barnier’s mandate. “We’re making it clear to the EU we can’t do a deal on those terms,” he told Sky News yesterday. “I am confident that there is a deal to be done. It just requires flexibility on the EU side.”
During secret talks, the EU has signalled that the European stance on “level playing field” demands for regulatory alignment and a role for the European Court of Justice are more flexible than presented, publicly, by Mr Frost and the government.
“A sort of spectre has been created in the UK about continuing to copy and paste to align indefinitely to EU standards. The reality is different,” the European source said. “The UK, for example, has its own domestic legislation on climate neutrality contrary to probably the vast bulk of the EU member states; it shouldn’t be that complicated.”
"The EU does not expect the government to ask for an extension to the transition period next month to keep the UK in Europe’s single market and customs union beyond the end of the year.
"They will probably come in June and say, ‘look, we need to redouble our efforts’ to find common ground [before] autumn,' the European source said. 'I’m not overly confident that they wouldn’t want to change their mind on an extension later on.'
In The Telegraph, Frost claims Barnier is "losing the argument" as if the future relationship talks are some kind of academic debate with a vote at the end. I'm not even sure what he means. Could it be that if we leave on WTO terms in January with chaos at the ports, food and medicine shortages, job losses and a sterling crisis he believes we'll all be saying good old Dave, never mind our lives being blighted, that's all just fine and dandy, but he certainly won the argument? This as we scrape the last thin layer of margarine onto a slice of mouldy bread or shake the empty cereal packet for the umpteenth time?
The Times article also includes the next bit which makes the first even more difficult to understand:
Race to clinch trade deals
"Trade deals secured by the UK as it leaves the EU cover only 6 per cent of its commerce with the world (Callum Jones writes).
"Boris Johnson’s government has vowed to ensure 80 per cent of imports and exports are covered by free trade agreements within three years. Whitehall officials have shored up 19 of the EU’s trade pacts, including with Switzerland and South Korea.
"Analysis of statistics published by the Department for International Trade shows that of Britain’s £1.4 trillion trade last year, £84.8 billion — or about 6 per cent — was covered by agreements. A further 47 per cent of trade was with the EU, while 16 per cent was with the US. The first round of talks with Washington concluded on Friday."
"Emily Thornberry, Labour’s shadow trade secretary, said that the figures pointed 'to a grim reality'. The trade department said that it had completed 75 per cent of its targeted deals 'and we are working to have the rest done by January'."
We have pledged to have 80% of our overseas trade carried out under free trade agreements in three years - and we apparently propose getting there by threatening to jettison just short of 60% of the target through exiting the EU on WTO terms.
The whole notion of Brexit is totally insane in my opinion but the government's negotiating position sometimes make it look like a text book exemplar.
