So many hares were set off running last night, most being misdirected by a Guardian report from Lisa O'Carroll who claimed a deal on fishing has been settled leaving only the old LPF stuff. Downing Street later denied it and this morning, briefing EU ambassadors at 7 o'clock in Brussels, Barnier has said the story is "completely untrue." Essentially there has been more talking but no real progress. In what appears to be increasingly chaotic scenes it should not be forgotten this is all down to Boris Johnson and his decision in June not to agree an extension.
The best late summary of where we are came from Tony Connelly of RTE (we have to rely on Ireland for accurate reporting) in a Twitter thread:
1/ On fish, both sides are far apart, but it sounds like the UK wants the EU to jump first before it, in turn, shows flexibility. The UK is offering a three year phase in but with an upfront payment of €300m in demersal fish (ie, out of the €650m EU boats catch in UK waters)
— Tony Connelly (@tconnellyRTE) December 6, 2020
The position is more or less the same as he tweeted on Saturday.
Where O'Carroll seems to be correct is in the LPF area where she says:
"In an unwelcome development for Boris Johnson, France and Germany have instructed the EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier that they are united on the need for the UK to face consequences over future divergence from the EU rulebook as policy changes.
"The EU is proposing that it should have the power to unilaterally hit British exports with tariffs in the event that Whitehall fails to follow Brussels’ upgrades to its regulations.
UK sources said that the negotiations would collapse unless that demand was dropped within the next 48 hours."
She also claimed, perhaps wrongly, that the talks are "now going to the wire on the so-called “ratchet clause” under which the UK government would have to follow EU environmental, social and labour standards as they develop over time or face tariffs on British exports."
Holger Hestermeyer, Professor of Law at King's law School, corrected her and said the ratchet clause is actually far less onerous:
Here's the draft ratchet clause from the EU proposal pic.twitter.com/f0Dc8STzy9
— Holger Hestermeyer (@hhesterm) December 6, 2020
Reading it I can see the 'ratchet' works when one side (EU or UK) raises its standards. IF - and only IF - the other side agree and raises its own standards does that create a new floor. If he's right, I am not sure why the UK are quoted in The Guardian article saying unless that clause is dropped in the next 48 hours the talks would collapse. It seems quote innocuous to me. The UK can just leave UK standard to lag behind the EU forever.
Why would the EU accept that?
Anton Spisak at The Tony Blair Institute put it better:
This para should read:“The talks are now going to the wire over how both sides’ environmental, social and labour rules will be enforced after the transition period. The EU is asking the UK to make the rules subject to binding arbitration, a position which the UK rejects.”— Anton Spisak (@AntonSpisak) December 6, 2020
I think this is a more accurate summary. The two sides have not got any agreement yet but this morning according to reports, France and Germany are united on this point. The UK, obviously in my opinion, cannot be allowed tariff and quota free access to the single market while being free to diverge as standards are developed and raised over time.
Where does all this leave us? I don't know but this tweet from yesterday by former Europe minister Denis Macshane is fascinating:
Brussels friend takes kids swimming this morning + bumps into top Barnier aide with his child before starting negos again. He put No Deal at 99%. France, Italy, Spain, Holland, Belgium and Denmark have all told VDL that Johnson's refusal to compromise is unacceptable @Mij_Europe
— Denis MacShane (@DenisMacShane) December 6, 2020
Mujtaba Rahman, ex Treasury and EU official, well connected in Brussels says the same:
I'd say France now of view that deal is probs unlikely; not impossible, but very difficult. With IM & finance Bills hanging over talks, senior FR officials are clear that treaty must contain language/safeguards which Govt can't reject or reinterpret at later stage 4/
— Mujtaba Rahman (@Mij_Europe) December 6, 2020
Johnson has some serious decisions to make later today. Brace......
If you need to take the longer view this morning as things reach their denouement in Brussels, can I suggest this Twitter thread from Andrew Levi. He makes a point that I think is right. The ONLY sustainable position for the UK in the long term is inside the CU and the SM. It would avoid the NI protocol, the insane increase in customs checks and paperwork and a mass of other problems. Levi says:
"The UK of GB & NI shares an island (Ireland) & a land border with the RoI. The security, economic, social, political & diplomatic consequences, understood not least in the context of the GFA, a binding international treaty, make continued UK membership of the EU’s CU+SM, or practically identical arrangements, essential.
"No other outcome is politically or legally sustainable. Pretending otherwise is disqualifying for anyone commenting on UK-EU relations & related issues."
I agree with this from a trade point of view and I wouldn't personally be unhappy with a Norway option but once you make this calculation, sitting outside the political structures is just ridiculous. It may suit Norway to have decisions made for it but not the UK and so you have to conclude that rejoining is the only option.
From that point of view anything that happens today is mere distraction.
