Spanish life is not always likeable but it is compellingly loveable.
- Christopher Howse:A Pilgrim in Spain.
If you've arrived here because of an interest in Galicia or Pontevedra, see my web page here. Garish but informative.
Spain
- On the one hand, Spain seems to be giving a good example to others as regards refugees. On the other, it seems to be failing to comply with its prior obligations. All rather confusing.
- More positive measures from the new government.
- And good news for the country's hard-done-to pensioners.
- Things take their time here. The investigation into the Santiago rail crash which saw the deaths of 80 people is reported to have entered its final phase – more than 5 years after it took place. We might soon see if the government has been successful in obfuscating matters and pinning the blame entirely on the driver.
Europe/The UK/Brexit
- For those interested, in the 2 articles below Ambrose Evans Pritchard gives his reasons for believing that: 1. The EU would bring about its own destruction by rejecting the Chequers deal, and 2. The worst thing for the UK would be for the EU to accept it. As to whether his preferred development would work, Richard North would probably demur.
- For the very seriously interested, the 3rd article is Richard North's view of the UK White Paper and the deal/offer enshrined in it. Essentially: This is a litany of delusion. . . . There is not the slightest chance of this being accepted by the EU.
- Donald Trump, as is his wont, has said that the Brits are his 'dearest friends'. Given his outrageous impolitic statements so far, one's forced to say With friends like this . . . Was there ever a politician who made comments on the basis of such monumental ignorance? Or who blantantly lied so much?
Galeglish
- A onda feminista no é un bluf . . . .
- I discovered why the Post Office was closed the other day; it was a local public holiday. San Benito.
- Spanish society is slowly changing but more than 50% of parents here still depend on grandparents looking after their kids during the working day.
- I wish I'd seen the big quay-side fight earlier this week involving 15 anglers and mariners. Apparently the boats of the latter got too close to the lines of the former. Possibly deliberately.
Finally . . .
- Reading an Orwell novel of the 1930s – less than 100 years ago – I found myself wondering how many modern Brits would know these usages:-
To communicate: To take communion
A cure: A place of work for a curate.
To make love to: (As with Duff Cooper) To chat up
Cretonnes: ???
Spillikins: A game with sticks???
A coster: A street seller of fruit and vegetables.
A villanelle: ???
To condole: To offer condolences/sympathy.
Paregoric: ???
Tow: ???
Butter muslin:
Pull baker: Tug of war???
Absolutely spiky: ???
BTW – As in another novel, Orwell writes of men trying to chat up women by 'pinching their elbows'. I guess this has died out. Or maybe it was just his own preferred method.
© David Colin Davies, Pontevedra: 12.7.18
1. The EU is threatening to destroy the UK economy – but will only bring a doomloop that guarantees its own ruin
An Airbus without wings is a just a bus. It is an old joke in the aerospace industry. It is also true.
Wings for the A320, A330, A340, A350, and A380 series assembled at Airbus plants in France and Germany are built in Britain. Some are flown in giant Beluga transport aircraft to Toulouse. Others are shipped by water on special craft, and hauled in convoys from Bordeaux through the villages of Aquitaine.
Airbus warns of “catastrophe” following Brexit if there is a total rupture in trade. It fears a “€1bn (£800m) weekly loss in turnover”. The supply chain would “fall apart”.
The company’s "Brexit risk assessment" says 4,000 UK firms supply over 10,0000 aircraft parts, including Rolls Royce engines.
Airbus is running at full capacity. It does not have the means to stockpile wings and other parts for a long siege. Talk of trying to cover the breach with old-technology wings from China is laughable.
It would take years for the company to replace the UK’s operations. Costs would be crippling. Europe’s foremost industrial venture with a 130,000 employees and enormous global prestige would either risk bankruptcy or require a massive EU rescue in breach of WTO rules.
The Airbus monitum was reported in the British and EU press as a warning to Theresa May – or rather her opponents – that the UK must back down on Brexit or lose much of an aerospace sector worth £35bn a year. Yet it could equally be read as a warning to Europe’s leaders. Integrated supply-chains cut both ways.
I wish no ill towards Airbus. Chief executive Thomas Enders has done a superb job. The ex-Bundeswehr parachutist has fought a long campaign to liberate the company from meddling by governments. He has turned it into a genuine market animal rather than a trophy project for Euro-nationalists. He has been a firm friend of Britain.
The Airbus doom scenario assumes that certification for parts would break-down and there would be no roll-over of (EASA) flying authority. This is possible, given the ideological fever of Martin Selmayr’s punishment task-force in Brussels.
Yet if the EU were to impose such an absurd settlement – to discourage future apostasy – there would be greater matters to worry about than trade. The strategic order of Europe would disintegrate. It would also entail mutual assured destruction, our old friend MAD from the Cold War.
The fact is that aircraft parts are exempt from tariffs under WTO rules. The aerospace lobby ADS told the House of Lords that the tariff barrier challenge was “doable” for the industry.
If Britain remained outside the customs union but had a comprehensive free trade deal with the EU, any raw materials that were not exempted could flow back and forth on a “fast-track” basis. It is no more than a friction. Only if the EU refused to make the relationship work would Airbus be prevented from carrying on more less as before.
The car sector faces a parallel saga. If the EU acts on the Selmayr method – to create havoc unless Britain swallows the customs union, the single market, and the European Court of Justice, using the Irish border as the pretext – it will inflict a massive shock on its own companies.
The German auto firms would be shut out of their biggest market, and the one with the highest profit margin. Their cross-Channel supply-chain would also “fall apart”. Were this to combine with Donald Trump’s 25pc car tariffs, it would quickly pose a systemic danger to Germany’s core industry.
We have the spectacle of VW, BMW and Daimler eagerly pushing for the abolition of EU car barriers in order to assuage Mr Trump’s wrath. They are not demanding that America accepts the writ of the ECJ, or submits to the EU regulatory regime. They are not insisting on the "four freedoms", or babbling pieties about the sanctity of the single market. They just want to trade.
Yet the same companies are sternly demanding – through their business federations – that trade barriers be erected against Britain (and themselves) unless the UK bows to EU control over great swathes of its laws and policy social policy. They are taking this hard line because they think Europe has us over a barrel, encouraged in thinking this by large parts of the British establishment, Parliament, and the press.
You can go through the sectors one by one – airlines, tourism, agro-industry, etc – and it is obvious that a full attempt by the EU to suffocate the British economy would recoil with shattering force. Blowback from a punishment Brexit would be enough to trigger a violent recession. Financial contagion would lead to a chain of sovereign defaults and a "doomloop" on steroids for the banking system.
The stock EU narrative is that Britain would face the greater devastation by far. But you can construct the opposite case, and not merely because the EU has an £80bn trade surplus with the Britain to protect. At the end of the day, the UK has its own central bank and currency, a deep Gilts market, and resilient institutions. The ordeal would be horrible, but Britain has survived worse.
The brittle EU Project would not survive. It is an open question whether the euro can hold together through the next global downturn even without the accelerant of a Selmayr-induced firestorm. It still has no fiscal union to back it up. Bail-out fatigue pervades in the North; rebel eurosceptics run Italy.
The European Central Bank has run out of powder. Interests rates are minus 0.4pc. The South has exhausted its fiscal space. Debt ratios are far closer to the danger zone than in 2008. Clemens Fuest, head of German IFO Institute, warned last week of an almighty disaster when the cycle turns.
The denouement is laid out in “Collapse: Europe after the European Union”. It is acri de coeur by Ian Kearns, co-founder of the European Leadership Network and a British diplomat of pro-EU sympathies. His point is that the toxic legacy of the last crisis has never been resolved.
“Macron’s fiscal union is going nowhere. The eurozone is a sitting duck waiting for the next crisis to happen. When it comes the fundamental weaknesses will be exposed brutally by markets, and Italy will be at the eye of the storm. We are looking at an unmanaged rout,” he told a gathering of the European Council on Foreign Relations.
His book explores all the “triggers of disintegration”, from the migrant crisis, to Putinism, and the ascendancy of the Salvini generation.
My own view is that if the EU pushes a maximalist line on Brexit to the point of total rupture – ie economic warfare – it guarantees its own ruin. It will cause tectonic rifts across multiple strategic fault-lines.
The difficulty is that many of those currently in charge of the EU machinery believe their own propaganda. They think that Brexit is largely British self-harm, with slim implications for them if it goes wrong.
If the UK chooses to resist – rather than accept colonial status – there may well be a hair-raising episode that would test nerves before the metaphorical penny drops in Brussels that you cannot fly an Airbus without wings.
This could be mitigated on the British side by a pre-funded fiscal bazooka worth 4pc of GDP for "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects, starting with a shock-and-awe blast as soon as the economy slows. That would alter the political optics of a no-deal Brexit in those crucial early months. It would greatly raise the chances that the EU would blink first.
Would Parliament vote for such a policy under its current composition? Of course not. So let us get rid of it. Let us hold the Tory Party to its electoral pledges. Let us encourage Brexiteers to force a leadership contest that goes to the party base. We know from Conservative Home’s snap poll that over 60pc oppose the Chequers Deal. Let the party members pick a leader less terrified of shadows on the wall. Let them carry out a deselection purge of those Tory MPs in breach of their electoral Manifesto.
The new Prime Minister should table a proposal for a free trade accord covering both goods and services (with a partial carve-out for farming). There should be no offer of regulatory subordination. The deal should be on the standard basis of mutual recognition. Take it, or leave it.
If the EU says no – which it will, at first – the UK should embrace WTO terms with confidence and pursue Washington’s offer for an accelerated free trade deal. None of the £38bn exit fee should be paid until the EU stops its threats on aircraft landing rights, Euratom nuclear flows, and routine housekeeping matters.
The new Prime Minister should go to the people and seek a mandate for this demarche. Jeremy Corbyn might win, but he cannot easily repeat the two-faced deception of 2017: Brexiteer to the North; Remainer to the South.
The only way to find out whether the electoral majority favours Spartan sovereignty or a luxurious suzerainty is to have a contest. Bring it on.
2. The danger is that Europe might accept our Brexit White Paper
The White Paper is modelled on the country's EU accord, but does it make any sense?
The European Court will reign supreme. It will be the final arbiter in disputes over swathes of UK law and social practice.
The Government has tried to disguised this by obfuscation. The “common rulebook” for goods and agri-foods is linguistic legerdemain. It is patently the “EU rulebook”.
The full 98-page draft White Paper fleshes out how Brussels will secure British compliance on EU laws covering the environment, employment and social policy, consumer protection, state aid, and competition – indefinitely.
The UK would commit by Treaty to “pay due regard” to ECJ case law. If a conflict arises from the new EU-UK joint committee or arbitration panel, the dispute goes to the European Court.
Martin Howe, QC, from Lawyers For Britain, likens this to the Moldova Association Agreement. That distressed country in the upper Balkans – involuntary host to the Russian 14th Army – accepts binding ECJ rulings because it is desperate to join the EU. “Quite why this is thought suitable for a country which has left the EU and is the fifth largest economy in the world is unclear. The supremacy of the UK courts over laws in the UK would not be restored,” he tweeted.
The Government will offer the EU “non-regression” clauses on the environment, employment, and social policy. This is what the EU’s Michel Barnier has been demanding all along. It is the legal mechanism to stop the UK gaining competitiveness – as he sees it – by means of social and economic dumping. Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary, told Parliament in April why this abstruse wording is so crucial. “The non-regression clause, in essence, is a means of the EU giving itself potential control over domestic legislation. It goes against the spirit of taking back control,” he said. Whoops.
The White Paper pledges total compliance on EU competition law. Britain would “commit to a common rulebook on state aid”, and would maintain “current antitrust prohibitions and the merger control system”. This has major political implications. It shoots Jeremy Corbyn’s fox. The Labour leader would not be able to carry out his core economic policies. This greatly reduces the likelihood that he will join forces with Theresa May to push the proposals through Parliament against resistance from Tory Brexiteers.
Professor Costas Lapavitsas from London University (SOAS) says EU rules would“place severe constraints” on Mr Corbyn’s plans for state aid, nationalisation, public procurement, and so forth.
“These are not minor issues. They lie at the heart of any attempt to transform Britain’s economy in a socialist direction, especially when it comes to industrial policy,” he said. Mr Corbyn would have far more freedom under World Trade Organisation rules.
Thatcherite Tories might have less trouble accepting the EU’s state aid and competition regime, if you leave aside the large issue of sovereignty. The EU’s Competition Directorate has long been an Anglo-Saxon sphere and an agent of market reform in Brussels. However, it may cease to be so over time without Britain in the system. It may become more Gallic or Rhenish. This area is a textbook example of why the UK is better either essentially in the EU, or essentially out.
The White Paper insists that the writ of the European Court will extend only to issues concerning the common rule for goods and agri-food, and only where needed to achieve frictionless trade. It is window-dressing. “This cannot be limited to export industries. It must cover the whole economy. How could you police two different sets of standards?” said Dr Simon Usherwood from Surrey University and UK in a Changing Europe. The idea of one labour law for goods and another for services is jejune.
The UK would sign up to most of the EU’s ‘Pillar 1’ directives and regulations, the bulk of the 170,000 Acquis. While this can in theory be rescinded under the Withdrawal Act, the White Paper freezes in place this vast corpus of law, some of which is incompatible with new technology such as Blockchain.
The plan allows the UK to diverge on future laws – subject to “consequences” – but other countries have found themselves unable to exercise such a prerogative. When the Swiss voted to restrict migrants and infringe free movement, the EU cut rough on everything from science research to electricity policy. Brussels put the country on a tax evasion "grey list" as a pressure tool, and threatened to cut off market access. Switzerland capitulated.
“If the EU suspected that the UK was messing around on part of the agreement, they might give us the Swiss treatment,” said Dr Usherwood. The Sword of Damocles would hang forever.
Much of the White Paper is eminently sensible. But it is not Brexit. By accepting the EU’s regulatory orbit, it greatly reduces the chance of meaningful trade deals with the US, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the rest of the world. There is no escape from the EU’s clammy embrace.
It abandons the quest for "mutual recognition" as the central philosophy of the post-Brexit relationship with the EU. By separating services from goods, it precludes the UK offering countries such as China full access to its lucrative goods market as a door-opener for our service exports.
It tilts the whole Brexit settlement towards the interests of the car industry, aerospace, chemicals, and the traded goods sector. No wonder they seem pleased. But UK goods exports to the EU are around 8% of GDP, and part of that is the recycling of high foreign content in UK car exports.
It allows the EU to preserve its surplus in manufacturing trade (now £95bn) without demanding reciprocation on services, where Britain has the advantage. It gives the EU continued control over Britain's policies, while removing Britain’s veto in the Council of Ministers, its Euro-MPs in Strasbourg, and its judges in Luxembourg.
As I wrote in today's paper, it is suzerainty. The danger is not that the EU will reject the White Paper, but that the EU will accept it. How they must be laughing at the Berlaymont.
The White Paper is modelled on the country's EU accord, but does it make any sense?
The European Court will reign supreme. It will be the final arbiter in disputes over swathes of UK law and social practice.
The Government has tried to disguised this by obfuscation. The “common rulebook” for goods and agri-foods is linguistic legerdemain. It is patently the “EU rulebook”.
The full 98-page draft White Paper fleshes out how Brussels will secure British compliance on EU laws covering the environment, employment and social policy, consumer protection, state aid, and competition – indefinitely.
The UK would commit by Treaty to “pay due regard” to ECJ case law. If a conflict arises from the new EU-UK joint committee or arbitration panel, the dispute goes to the European Court.
Martin Howe, QC, from Lawyers For Britain, likens this to the Moldova Association Agreement. That distressed country in the upper Balkans – involuntary host to the Russian 14th Army – accepts binding ECJ rulings because it is desperate to join the EU. “Quite why this is thought suitable for a country which has left the EU and is the fifth largest economy in the world is unclear. The supremacy of the UK courts over laws in the UK would not be restored,” he tweeted.
The Government will offer the EU “non-regression” clauses on the environment, employment, and social policy. This is what the EU’s Michel Barnier has been demanding all along. It is the legal mechanism to stop the UK gaining competitiveness – as he sees it – by means of social and economic dumping. Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary, told Parliament in April why this abstruse wording is so crucial. “The non-regression clause, in essence, is a means of the EU giving itself potential control over domestic legislation. It goes against the spirit of taking back control,” he said. Whoops.
The White Paper pledges total compliance on EU competition law. Britain would “commit to a common rulebook on state aid”, and would maintain “current antitrust prohibitions and the merger control system”. This has major political implications. It shoots Jeremy Corbyn’s fox. The Labour leader would not be able to carry out his core economic policies. This greatly reduces the likelihood that he will join forces with Theresa May to push the proposals through Parliament against resistance from Tory Brexiteers.
Professor Costas Lapavitsas from London University (SOAS) says EU rules would“place severe constraints” on Mr Corbyn’s plans for state aid, nationalisation, public procurement, and so forth.
“These are not minor issues. They lie at the heart of any attempt to transform Britain’s economy in a socialist direction, especially when it comes to industrial policy,” he said. Mr Corbyn would have far more freedom under World Trade Organisation rules.
Thatcherite Tories might have less trouble accepting the EU’s state aid and competition regime, if you leave aside the large issue of sovereignty. The EU’s Competition Directorate has long been an Anglo-Saxon sphere and an agent of market reform in Brussels. However, it may cease to be so over time without Britain in the system. It may become more Gallic or Rhenish. This area is a textbook example of why the UK is better either essentially in the EU, or essentially out.
The White Paper insists that the writ of the European Court will extend only to issues concerning the common rule for goods and agri-food, and only where needed to achieve frictionless trade. It is window-dressing. “This cannot be limited to export industries. It must cover the whole economy. How could you police two different sets of standards?” said Dr Simon Usherwood from Surrey University and UK in a Changing Europe. The idea of one labour law for goods and another for services is jejune.
The UK would sign up to most of the EU’s ‘Pillar 1’ directives and regulations, the bulk of the 170,000 Acquis. While this can in theory be rescinded under the Withdrawal Act, the White Paper freezes in place this vast corpus of law, some of which is incompatible with new technology such as Blockchain.
The plan allows the UK to diverge on future laws – subject to “consequences” – but other countries have found themselves unable to exercise such a prerogative. When the Swiss voted to restrict migrants and infringe free movement, the EU cut rough on everything from science research to electricity policy. Brussels put the country on a tax evasion "grey list" as a pressure tool, and threatened to cut off market access. Switzerland capitulated.
“If the EU suspected that the UK was messing around on part of the agreement, they might give us the Swiss treatment,” said Dr Usherwood. The Sword of Damocles would hang forever.
Much of the White Paper is eminently sensible. But it is not Brexit. By accepting the EU’s regulatory orbit, it greatly reduces the chance of meaningful trade deals with the US, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the rest of the world. There is no escape from the EU’s clammy embrace.
It abandons the quest for "mutual recognition" as the central philosophy of the post-Brexit relationship with the EU. By separating services from goods, it precludes the UK offering countries such as China full access to its lucrative goods market as a door-opener for our service exports.
It tilts the whole Brexit settlement towards the interests of the car industry, aerospace, chemicals, and the traded goods sector. No wonder they seem pleased. But UK goods exports to the EU are around 8% of GDP, and part of that is the recycling of high foreign content in UK car exports.
It allows the EU to preserve its surplus in manufacturing trade (now £95bn) without demanding reciprocation on services, where Britain has the advantage. It gives the EU continued control over Britain's policies, while removing Britain’s veto in the Council of Ministers, its Euro-MPs in Strasbourg, and its judges in Luxembourg.
As I wrote in today's paper, it is suzerainty. The danger is not that the EU will reject the White Paper, but that the EU will accept it. How they must be laughing at the Berlaymont.
3. Richard North's comments on the UK's White Paper deal/offer.
The Government, says Mrs May's White Paper, "is determined to build a new relationship that works for both the UK and the EU". This is a relationship, the paper says, "which sees the UK leave the Single Market and the Customs Union to seize new opportunities and forge a new role in the world, while protecting jobs, supporting growth and maintaining security cooperation".
It goes on to say that the Government "believes this new relationship needs to be broader in scope than any other that exists between the EU and a third country". It should, it says, "reflect the UK's and the EU's deep history, close ties, and unique starting point".
Before the White Paper had been completed and signed off, though, it might have been a good idea if Mrs May had reviewed the EU position a little more carefully. A good start might have been Michel Barnier's speech to the Committee of the Regions in Brussels on 22 March 2017, only a week before the UK was to deposit formally its Article 50 notification with the European Council.
This speech was of special significance as it was entitled: "The Conditions for Reaching an Agreement in the Negotiations with the United Kingdom". And, as described by the label on the tin, that is precisely what Barnier did.
The challenge, he said, was "to build a new partnership between the European Union and the United Kingdom on a solid foundation, based on mutual confidence". That meant "putting things in the right order: finding an agreement first on the principles of the orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom, in order to discuss subsequently – in confidence – our future relationship".
As to the partnership, Barnier readily conceded that there would be a free-trade agreement at its centre. This, he said, we will negotiate with the United Kingdom in due course. But, he added: it "cannot be equivalent to what exists today. And we should all prepare ourselves for that situation".
Re-stating the obvious, to give emphasis to the position, he noted that the UK "chooses to leave the Single Market and the Customs Union. It will be a third country in two years from now". And, by making this choice, the UK "will naturally find itself in a less favourable situation than that of a Member State". It will not be possible, Barnier said, "to cherry-pick and be a participant in parts of the Single Market".
If there was any doubt about the sincerity of this statement, and whether it represented EU policy with the full backing of the Member States, this was dispelled by the European Council's negotiating guidelines, published on 29 April 2017 – a month after the Article 50 notification.
This was M. Barnier's negotiating mandate, which remains in force right up to today. And right up front, it is "core principles", it stated:
A non-member of the Union, that does not live up to the same obligations as a member, cannot have the same rights and enjoy the same benefits as a member. In this context, the European Council welcomes the recognition by the British Government that the four freedoms of the Single Market are indivisible and that there can be no "cherry picking".
These principles were to be repeated and emphasised many times by many different speakers, and M. Barnier remained true to them, throughout. In Berlin, on 29 November 2017, Barnier was saying: "A third country, however close it may be to the Union, may not lay claim to a status that is equivalent or superior to that of a Member of the Union". And, on 13 March of this year, Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker reminded us that cherry-picking was not possible.
This was followed up by supplemental guidelines published by the European Council on 23 March. Here, it is stated:
… the European Council has to take into account the repeatedly stated positions of the UK, which limit the depth of such a future partnership. Being outside the Customs Union and the Single Market will inevitably lead to frictions in trade. Divergence in external tariffs and internal rules as well as absence of common institutions and a shared legal system, necessitates checks and controls to uphold the integrity of the EU Single Market as well as of the UK market. This unfortunately will have negative economic consequences, in particular in the United Kingdom.
The thing is, these are not just words. It is a serious weakness on the part of generations of English politicians to dismiss statements of continental politicians as rhetoric, devoid of meaning. But even if one wants to ignore the speeches, there is no getting round the negotiating guidelines. These are immovable.
Thus, when Mrs May expresses via her White Paper that she believes the "new relationship" that the UK wants to negotiate "needs to be broader in scope than any other that exists between the EU and a third country", she is tilting at windmills. She will get a "bog standard" FTA, the so-called Canada-dry deal – no more, no less.
Yet this has not percolated Mrs May's brain. She does not seem to be able to cope with the idea that Brexit means Brexit. It means we leave the EU and, when we do, we become a third country.
In this context, I have written many times about the EU's system for type approval of vehicles. Any and all third countries that want to sell cars within the territories have to submit their products for EU approval to a certification authority. After Brexit. UK certification will no longer be valid.
Yet, we see the White Paper blithely prattle about this subject, offering an "example" of mutual recognition of Vehicle Type Approvals. With the proposed "common rulebook", it says, the UK and the EU would continue recognising the activities of one another's type approval authorities, including whole vehicle type approval certificates, assessments of conformity of production procedures and other associated activities.
Furthermore, it says, "Member State approval authorities would continue to be permitted to designate technical service providers in the UK for the purpose of EC approvals and vice versa", and "Both the UK and the EU would continue to permit vehicles to enter into service on the basis of a valid certificate of conformity".
This is pure, unmitigated fantasy. There is not a single country outside the Single Market that is permitted this facility. And, at the very least, if the EU permitted the UK to certify vehicles, it would be forced under WTO non-discrimination rules to permit every other nation the same rights – driving a massive hole in the Single Market.
There are no possible circumstances, therefore, where this is going to happen. Mrs May and her government are deluded in even suggesting this as a possibility.
But the delusion does not stop there. The UK is also proposing a "common rulebook on agri-food", which "encompasses those rules that must be checked at the border". Its adoption, it says, "would remove the need to undertake additional regulatory checks at the border – avoiding the need for any physical infrastructure, such as Border Inspection Posts (BIP), at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland".
Again, this is fantasy. Outside the Single Market, with the one very special exception of Switzerland - which adopts in its entirety the food-related Single Market acquis and has all its imported goods run through BIPs – there is not a single country anywhere in the world that is permitted to by-pass the border inspection system.
There is an outside possibility that, if the UK adopted the entire acquis, plus the surveillance and enforcement systems, and opened up his premises and government agencies to EU inspection, and also undertook only to import foods which conformed with EU law, inspecting them at the border through BIPs at it does now, then the EU might waive border inspection.
However, that would trash the idea of "taking back control" and also any idea of separate trade deals on agri-foods with the United States and other potential partners. Already in trouble with the "Ultras", Mrs May would be torn apart if she conceded such a scheme.
The trouble is, it doesn't stop there. Pharmaceuticals get the same delusional treatment. So do chemicals under the REACH regime, and aviation safety is treated as if Brexit will not exist. The UK government blithely assumes that it can continue to certify those functions it already does, while EASA will retain its current functions and third country provisions will not apply.
Here, the very special case of Switzerland is cited, which again requires the adoption of the whole acquis and regulatory oversight implemented via a formal agreement with the EU, which comes under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
Even if the UK could accept this, and thereby breach its own red lines, it is unlikely that this agreement would be repeated for the UK, as there are new legislative provisions which set out the parameters for international cooperation.
In short, this White Paper is a litany of delusion – and we haven't even looked at the Irish issue, much less the other matters. We'll attend to this tomorrow, but already we see the porcine aviation out in force. There is not the slightest chance of this being accepted by the EU.
It goes on to say that the Government "believes this new relationship needs to be broader in scope than any other that exists between the EU and a third country". It should, it says, "reflect the UK's and the EU's deep history, close ties, and unique starting point".
Before the White Paper had been completed and signed off, though, it might have been a good idea if Mrs May had reviewed the EU position a little more carefully. A good start might have been Michel Barnier's speech to the Committee of the Regions in Brussels on 22 March 2017, only a week before the UK was to deposit formally its Article 50 notification with the European Council.
This speech was of special significance as it was entitled: "The Conditions for Reaching an Agreement in the Negotiations with the United Kingdom". And, as described by the label on the tin, that is precisely what Barnier did.
The challenge, he said, was "to build a new partnership between the European Union and the United Kingdom on a solid foundation, based on mutual confidence". That meant "putting things in the right order: finding an agreement first on the principles of the orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom, in order to discuss subsequently – in confidence – our future relationship".
As to the partnership, Barnier readily conceded that there would be a free-trade agreement at its centre. This, he said, we will negotiate with the United Kingdom in due course. But, he added: it "cannot be equivalent to what exists today. And we should all prepare ourselves for that situation".
Re-stating the obvious, to give emphasis to the position, he noted that the UK "chooses to leave the Single Market and the Customs Union. It will be a third country in two years from now". And, by making this choice, the UK "will naturally find itself in a less favourable situation than that of a Member State". It will not be possible, Barnier said, "to cherry-pick and be a participant in parts of the Single Market".
If there was any doubt about the sincerity of this statement, and whether it represented EU policy with the full backing of the Member States, this was dispelled by the European Council's negotiating guidelines, published on 29 April 2017 – a month after the Article 50 notification.
This was M. Barnier's negotiating mandate, which remains in force right up to today. And right up front, it is "core principles", it stated:
A non-member of the Union, that does not live up to the same obligations as a member, cannot have the same rights and enjoy the same benefits as a member. In this context, the European Council welcomes the recognition by the British Government that the four freedoms of the Single Market are indivisible and that there can be no "cherry picking".
These principles were to be repeated and emphasised many times by many different speakers, and M. Barnier remained true to them, throughout. In Berlin, on 29 November 2017, Barnier was saying: "A third country, however close it may be to the Union, may not lay claim to a status that is equivalent or superior to that of a Member of the Union". And, on 13 March of this year, Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker reminded us that cherry-picking was not possible.
This was followed up by supplemental guidelines published by the European Council on 23 March. Here, it is stated:
… the European Council has to take into account the repeatedly stated positions of the UK, which limit the depth of such a future partnership. Being outside the Customs Union and the Single Market will inevitably lead to frictions in trade. Divergence in external tariffs and internal rules as well as absence of common institutions and a shared legal system, necessitates checks and controls to uphold the integrity of the EU Single Market as well as of the UK market. This unfortunately will have negative economic consequences, in particular in the United Kingdom.
The thing is, these are not just words. It is a serious weakness on the part of generations of English politicians to dismiss statements of continental politicians as rhetoric, devoid of meaning. But even if one wants to ignore the speeches, there is no getting round the negotiating guidelines. These are immovable.
Thus, when Mrs May expresses via her White Paper that she believes the "new relationship" that the UK wants to negotiate "needs to be broader in scope than any other that exists between the EU and a third country", she is tilting at windmills. She will get a "bog standard" FTA, the so-called Canada-dry deal – no more, no less.
Yet this has not percolated Mrs May's brain. She does not seem to be able to cope with the idea that Brexit means Brexit. It means we leave the EU and, when we do, we become a third country.
In this context, I have written many times about the EU's system for type approval of vehicles. Any and all third countries that want to sell cars within the territories have to submit their products for EU approval to a certification authority. After Brexit. UK certification will no longer be valid.
Yet, we see the White Paper blithely prattle about this subject, offering an "example" of mutual recognition of Vehicle Type Approvals. With the proposed "common rulebook", it says, the UK and the EU would continue recognising the activities of one another's type approval authorities, including whole vehicle type approval certificates, assessments of conformity of production procedures and other associated activities.
Furthermore, it says, "Member State approval authorities would continue to be permitted to designate technical service providers in the UK for the purpose of EC approvals and vice versa", and "Both the UK and the EU would continue to permit vehicles to enter into service on the basis of a valid certificate of conformity".
This is pure, unmitigated fantasy. There is not a single country outside the Single Market that is permitted this facility. And, at the very least, if the EU permitted the UK to certify vehicles, it would be forced under WTO non-discrimination rules to permit every other nation the same rights – driving a massive hole in the Single Market.
There are no possible circumstances, therefore, where this is going to happen. Mrs May and her government are deluded in even suggesting this as a possibility.
But the delusion does not stop there. The UK is also proposing a "common rulebook on agri-food", which "encompasses those rules that must be checked at the border". Its adoption, it says, "would remove the need to undertake additional regulatory checks at the border – avoiding the need for any physical infrastructure, such as Border Inspection Posts (BIP), at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland".
Again, this is fantasy. Outside the Single Market, with the one very special exception of Switzerland - which adopts in its entirety the food-related Single Market acquis and has all its imported goods run through BIPs – there is not a single country anywhere in the world that is permitted to by-pass the border inspection system.
There is an outside possibility that, if the UK adopted the entire acquis, plus the surveillance and enforcement systems, and opened up his premises and government agencies to EU inspection, and also undertook only to import foods which conformed with EU law, inspecting them at the border through BIPs at it does now, then the EU might waive border inspection.
However, that would trash the idea of "taking back control" and also any idea of separate trade deals on agri-foods with the United States and other potential partners. Already in trouble with the "Ultras", Mrs May would be torn apart if she conceded such a scheme.
The trouble is, it doesn't stop there. Pharmaceuticals get the same delusional treatment. So do chemicals under the REACH regime, and aviation safety is treated as if Brexit will not exist. The UK government blithely assumes that it can continue to certify those functions it already does, while EASA will retain its current functions and third country provisions will not apply.
Here, the very special case of Switzerland is cited, which again requires the adoption of the whole acquis and regulatory oversight implemented via a formal agreement with the EU, which comes under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
Even if the UK could accept this, and thereby breach its own red lines, it is unlikely that this agreement would be repeated for the UK, as there are new legislative provisions which set out the parameters for international cooperation.
In short, this White Paper is a litany of delusion – and we haven't even looked at the Irish issue, much less the other matters. We'll attend to this tomorrow, but already we see the porcine aviation out in force. There is not the slightest chance of this being accepted by the EU.
No comments:
Post a Comment