The Brexit saga has (rightly) taken a back seat due to the Covid Crisis, however, with the help of video conferencing technology, negotiations on the future UK-EU relationship resumed last week. The impasses which hampered the first phase of the Brexit negotiations have re-emerged as the deadline for deciding on whether to extend the Transition Period (30th June) looms on the horizon.
As our recent article noted, the UK Government’s position appears to have hardened on this issue. Previously, it said it would not ask for an extension, leaving open the possibility that if the EU requested one it might take a more conciliatory stance. However, it is now claiming that even if the EU requests an extension, it will reject it also.
The negotiations themselves seem to have been focusing on different interpretations of the Political Declaration which both parties agreed to at the end of last year. The EU side is insisting that the UK needs to accept the conditions of a level playing field on issues relating to environmental law, State Aid and labour rules. However, the UK is pushing for a standalone Free Trade Agreement (FTA) similar to the EU-Canada (CETA) FTA with add-on arrangements covering issues such as access to fishing waters, which the UK wants to be negotiated annually. The UK does not want the future relationship to refer to EU law (i.e. interpretation by the European Court of Justice) when issues arise and cites relationships that the EU has with Canada as examples of how this would be possible.
There are discrepancies in both sides’ arguments. The Political Declaration did not state the UK as a whole should stay within the EU’s State Aid framework (but Northern Ireland would be subject to EU State Aid provisions for agricultural and industrial goods’ trade). However, having a tariff-free and quota-free trade deal with the EU, which is what the UK is striving for, has not been granted by the EU to any other major economy in the trade deals it has negotiated to date. Therefore, some form of close co-alignment with EU rules would be required for such a trade deal to be achieved.
It is difficult to see how much progress could be made on these substantive matters between now and the end of June, when a stock-taking exercise will be conducted before making a decision on whether the Transition Period would be extended, without some high-level political intervention. Back in October, it was a meeting between the Prime Minister and his Irish counterpart, Leo Varadkar, which broke the impasse on the backstop. Perhaps, as both the Prime Minister and Michel Barnier have been struck down by the coronavirus in recent weeks, that period of self-isolation would have given them some time for reflection, and to adopt a more constructive approach.
The agri-food sector has enough on its hands to deal with the Covid crisis and the economy as a whole is facing its most difficult slump since the Great Depression. What needs to be avoided now is another major disruption to supply-chains, which is what a No-Trade-Deal Brexit in December would bring. The UK is already out of the EU. It is better to take the time needed to put the frameworks in place to have a stable and secure future trading relationship with its closest neighbours, which as recent weeks have shown, remains very important for future food security.