Wednesday 26 February 2020

The EU mandate is published

Michel Barnier launched the EU's negotiating mandate yesterday and gave a press conference - in French. Fortunately for me, the Independent report on it HERE in English. They claim the mandate has been 'hardened' by the latest tweaks but we shall see what happens. Barnier was certainly uncompromising. He said unless the UK agreed to a “level playing field” on rules and regulations and access to fishing waters “there won’t be any agreement at all”

The final negotiating directive is HERE.  Incidentally, there is no index which makes it hard to read - if you want to see an index I created it's HERE.

Note the paragraph on LPF conditions is not 92 as in the tweet on Monday from the FT's Brussels correspondent, Mehreen Khan, but 94. Two earliers paragraphs have been inserted although I don't know which ones.

On the Irish protocol Mr Barnier warned the prime minister against “backtracking” on the commitments he signed up to in October’s withdrawal agreement, including on new checks and controls on goods travelling between the British mainland and Northern Ireland. This follows a similar warning from Simon Coveney, Ireland's Deputy PM: 
The Guardian covered the press conference (HERE), also reporting that Barnier said implementing the WA was a prequisite for future talks and suggesting we must maintain the ban on chlorinated chicken - their reading of paragraph 103 insisting both sides maintain “health and product sanitary quality in the food and agriculture sector”.

I don't think the final mandate is hugely different to the earlier drafts although there are lost of small tweaks to the language. I confess I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to compare and comment on what each small change means, although I see this morning a lot of people are trying to do just that. Georgina Wright, formerly of the Institute for Government thinks there are some 'nuggets' which you can read in her thread below:
On the LPF issue she notes the mandate doesn't call for the UK to have the 'same' standards as the EU but it should have 'corresponding high standards' (para 94). Is this a hardening?  I don't think it is. It gives a bit of wriggle room for both sides.

Peter Foster (still at The Telegraph prior to moving to the FT) sees five potential flash points. You can read his article HERE (No £). His flash points are:
  • The Level playing field
  • Agricultural rules
  • Implementation of the NI protocol
  • Fishing rights
  • Dispute resolution
On this last point, before reading his piece I had noted there are 16 references to 'dispute resolution' in the 46 pages. Clearly the EU see a lot of potentially contentious areas where disagreements are likely. There are always disagreements inside the EU but the Commission in these cases tries to reach a fair and balanced outcome. Head on confrontations are avoided as far as possible.

One can image outside there will be a constant stream of arguments where the EU will act in the interests of itself or a member state. I half suspect we will eventually come to realise why being a member is so much better.

The government is to publish our mandate on Thursday. The great benefit of seeing both sides' mandates is that we will be able to see who's redlines were breached, who stood firm and who gave ground.  I think the EU's will be the one which will carry the day.

Downing Street is already demanding the EU give us the same legal autonomy as Canada or Japan. Stephen Bush in The New Statesman argues the government's rhetoric is for a domestic audience, designed to prepare the ground for failure - with the EU carrying the blame.  David Henig says we aren't part of the EU any more and they can set whatever conditions they like. Bleating on about the EU's mandate being unfair instead of concentrating on our own, makes us look like whingers. 
David Davis has popped up like a fibreglass model of a dinosaur in a downmarket shopping centre, with an interview given to Brexit Briefings but reported on by the FT (HERE No£). In the Q&A he is still talking about the German car industry coming to our rescue, saying:

"Ultimately the EU sells 50 per cent more to us than we sell to them . . . there are a large number of vested interest groups that want this to continue. Our sales are very highly profitable. The nickname in the German car industry for us is treasure island . . . we are a highly profitable, very important market"

It's very strange how he sees EU companies pressing the Commission but no British companies doing the same here.  Yet we know that the UK government is ignoring ever louder pleas from industry to maintain close alignment.  I believe in the end it will be pressure from the British car industry and the prospect of factory closures and job losses that will force Brexit Johnson's hand. As Margaret Thatcher once said. "You can't buck the market".

However, I do not underestimate the sheer deluded idiocy at the top of government as this next bit shows:

Twitter is full of fanciful nonsense usually written by people who have no idea what they're talking about. Now the BBC's Andrew Neil, a man I thought knew stuff or at least didn't venture into areas in which he was ignorant has joined them.

Speaking to a conference of Make UK (formerly the Engineering Employers Federation or EEF) he is reported to have told them: 
The reaction he got isn't reported. I assume some of them fell about laughing. If he got the idea from Downing Street we are in much deeper trouble than anyone has ever suspected.  The sheer ignorance and naivety is stunning.  I always thought Brexit would be damaging but the extent of it goes much further than my worst nightmare. It will take decades to put right.

As far as I know, 3D printing is helpful in the design phase, making prototypes or models quickly or moulds for castings, that sort of thing. Mass production is something else altogether. Nobody uses 3D printing for high speed production of parts.  Apart from this there is also the question of design ownership, intellectual property rights, patent infringement and all the associated legal aspects.

And the notion this might happen in ten months time is just... well, words fail.

It's a head shaking moment that government and media are so distanced from reality.
Posted by at