Thanks to Richard North we have all, or at least those sad enough to wade through all the EU regulations that he quotes, become experts on live bi-valve molluscs or LBMs as they're known. Dr North has taken up a cudgel on behalf of the British shellfish industry to prove the EU have wrongly interpreted its own rules and thus overturn the 'ban' on shellfish exports from the UK's Class B waters.
On Twitter he has been involved in an exchange with Stefaan de Rynck, an EU official, demanding to know specifically which rule prevents UK fishermen sending LBMs to EU customers for depuration. Well he got an answer, this is it:
From class B areas they can be exported to an EU dispatch centre after depuration in UK or relaying in class A, subject to conditions. You ask for references: that would be 2019/628 (check annex 3) and COM regulation 2073/2005.
— Stefaan De Rynck (@StefaanDeRynck) February 9, 2021
I note Dr North's post this morning is wholly taken with the minutiae of these rules. It turns out that Regulation 2019/628 is to blame, or more accurately the lack of a form under the regulation to permit the export of LBMs from third country Class B waters without depuration. In his usual style Dr North says, "Although there is no actual ban, the absence of a certificate has the same effect as a ban. That is a nuance which the media seems to be incapable of understanding." He forgot to mention that until yesterday afternoon he didn't understand either.
The novelty of the UK as a third country telling the Commission they are acting unlawfully, as DEFRA Secretary George Eustice did recently, will not have gone unnoticed in Brussels. Even if they had acted Ultra Vires what would we have done, taken them to the ECJ? Now that would be a novelty.
Well at least the shellfish industry can rest assured the reason for its demise has been cleared up. I'm sure this will be a comfort to many whose livelihoods have been snatched away, as they join the job centre queue and fill in their job seeker forms.
In other news professor Steve Peers has received some internal, unpublished EU documents, part of which suggests a request will soon be made to extend the period allowed for EU ratification. At the moment, this is set in the TCA at 28 February:
This agreed decision will then be sent to the European Parliament for consent. It's explicit that an extension of the period to approve the treaty on the EU side is "inevitable". pic.twitter.com/ZZ8Kg4rvNS
— Steve Peers (@StevePeers) February 9, 2021
To extend the date will require a joint decision in one of the partnership committees and it will be a moment when the power dynamics play out. Whenever it's suggested we ask the EU for some derogation or easement, someone will say if we do so, the EU will demand something else in return. I assume this is how it works at that level.
For example, returning to the shellfish issue for a moment, perhaps something could be done to help the plight of some fishermen, but the EU might ask that we follow EU SPS rules or come under ECJ jurisdiction. This is anathema to the present government, so we don't ask.
But when the EU's request comes in to extend the ratification period what might we demand? The answer is not much I suspect. If we fail to acceded to the request, we could once again be in no deal territory. Imagine Johnson explaining to UK industry, after a pretty rocky six weeks, they will have to drop down even further to WTO rules on 1 March. It is unthinkable.
And it is this asymmetry which will mean the EU need offer nothing in return, and probably won't. In fact, this will become the new norm in future where Britain is constantly either too nervous to ask for any improvements for fear of what any quid pro quo might mean for 'sovereignty' or if we do ask, look weak by having to make large concessions.
Also, the EU's request for an extension to give more time for scrutiny may also rankle with UK parliamentarians who were forced to ratify it - or at least approve legislation implementing it in UK law - in 317 minutes on 30 December. They began at 9:38 am and the whole thing had been 'debated' and voted on (521 to 73) by 2:55 pm.
This was the second reading and the committee stage with the speaker telling members at 9:53:
"Given the length of the Second Reading call list, Members will understand that there will be no time left before 2.30 pm to debate the Bill in Committee. Nevertheless, I should inform Members that under the order of the House of today, notices of amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be moved in Committee of the whole House may be accepted until 10.30 am. To maintain social distancing, Members are asked not to bring amendments to the Table in the Chamber but to send them by email to the Public Bill Office. The Public Bill Office will aim to circulate early this afternoon a notice paper of the amendments received by 10.30 am."
British MPs had just 37 minutes to give notices of amendments, new clauses and new schedules and so on. It's not clear that anybody did.
MEPs in the European parliament and its committees will have months before they will be asked to ratify it. I ask which is the more democratic institution?
