Last week, the UK and the EU met at the most senior levels in what the labour government has described as a reset of EU relations. As usual, the conclusions are best documented on the EU website where they published a joint communique. Certainly the results of the negotiations have changed few minds. While I consider that the best result would be if both sides walked out thinking they’d won, my feeling is that this was a draw, although no major breakthroughs occurred and a huge opportunity wasted, primarily due to the lack of vision and ambition on the part of the Labour government.
The words on defence co-operation are the most concrete, although further negotiations are required and while UK companies will be able to bid for work from the EU, HMG will have to contribute to the budget.
The relegation of words by recasting youth mobility as youth experience, illustrates the stubborn recidivism of the labour government and the fact is, that there has been no movement by the EU on creative workers’ freedom of movement.
The two sides have agreed to continue to talk about an agricultural deal, and greater cooperation in the electricity, carbon and energy markets. The agricultural deal is crucial so reducing paperwork checks both between Great Britain and the European Union and also between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
There are several paragraphs on internal security and judicial co-operation which mention Europol but not the issue of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The UK has for decades, under both Tory and Labour governments been reluctant to engage with the Charter and it seems remains so; the children of fascist and Stalinist societies put more faith in a basic law than parliamentary sovereignty. I am unclear that these paragraphs are anything more than aspirational.
The press release/communique makes clear that its consequential programmes and agreements build on the Withdrawal Agreement, including the Windsor Framework, and the Trade and Cooperation Agreement and require their “full, timely, and faithful implementation”. The UK still has some work to do there as the Commission are pursuing eight infringements by the UK government of the existing agreements. This is a critical red-line for the EU.
I am interested how the closer to reality and the single market the proposals are the stronger the UK commitments to dynamic alignment, the CJEU and financial contribution are; it would seem we really are joining one agency/pillar at a time.
As many commentators, not least the UK Government observe, Starmer’s redlines have not been breached but little more progress could have been expected without some compromise and £140bn worth of GDP is at stake.
If we are to consider this as a football match, it’s probably a draw. The EU have ensured the current treaties are confirmed and that any entrance to the single market includes dynamic alignment, CJEU judicial authority and financial contributions, in exchange, the UK have obtained agreement that the Commission will engage in pre-legislative consultation. This is an important breakthrough. The defence agreement is necessary, but as noted the British government will need to contribute to the European Union’s defence budget to bid for arms contracts. The rest of the agreement are statements of ambition. The section on borders and judicial cooperation, I need to read again as I am unclear of the direction all future negotiations. Any agreement satisfactory to the UK Home Office and the European Union equivalent is not likely to be satisfactory for those of us who believe that racism fuels much of the immigration control debate.
The Tories and reform claim the agreement is a betrayal of the nine year old mandate, rejoin campaigners close to the Labour leadership such as Best for Britain, the European Movement, the LME and Sadiq Khan claim it’s a step in the right direction, the FT say and I agree that,
Labour arguably wasted some of the post-election goodwill it enjoyed last year in Brussels, through the paucity of its own ambition and its manifesto red lines insisting on no return to the EU single market, customs union or freedom of movement. Its new reset at least attempts to push up to the limits of some of those red lines.
The FT EB
The Economist also state that more is needed. [Also at archive.ph.]
It’s a better result than last time when the EU told the UK to do better.
The problem is that the UK wants a Swiss style deal where they can focus on those areas of maximum benefit to the UK economy. The EU want commitment to the full acquis. Squaring this circle is probably impossible just as fixing Brexit is.
Does it make rejoining more or less likely? I suggest neither, but the problem is the current Labour leadership and its stubborn and failed pursuit of the dying Brexit voter. …
