Notes from a dinner
An account of last Wednesday's Downing St dinner has been leaked to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and picked up by some British media outlets, including, rather belatedly, the BBC. Downing St "doesn't recognise the account" of what they say was a "constructive" meeting.
The report is summarised nicely by Judith Knott, with links to other, fuller accounts, so there's no need to present it all again here. Ms Knott enters the caveat that this has clearly been briefed by the European Commission, but most people seem to be taking it fairly seriously. The Economist's Jeremy Cliffe, who brought the story to many people, agrees. In interviews through the day he's said it's obviously one-sided, but at the very least it "talks to a perception" in many EU countries that May's expectations are unrealistic.
Suffice it to say, there seems to be a failure of comprehension between the UK (Theresa May and David Davis in this case) and EU (Jean-Claude Juncker and Michel Barnier), which should worry us all, whether we're pro- or anti-Brexit (apart, perhaps, from the UDI brigade, for whom the negotiations are no more than a distraction).
Negotiating positions
Let's look at the negotiating guidelines agreed in Brussels on Saturday and compare them with what the UK government has said about its approach. The Telegraph has reproduced the guidelines document with annotations to explain changes made in the run-up to Saturday's council meeting. The guidelines respond to the letter Mrs May sent on 29 March to trigger the Article 50 process.
In case you hadn't noticed, Mrs May wants to agree a "deep and special partnership" with the EU. The phrase is used seven times in a six-page letter, usually followed by some version of "taking in both economic and security cooperation". It's as if she really has little to say.
A striking quality of May's letter is her repeated praise and promotion of European cooperation (and the EU does agree it wants the UK "as a close partner in the future").
First, what do the two sides appear to agree on?
Both sides advocate cooperation and certainty during the talks, and both use similar language on the evils of disruption and cliff edges, and therefore the need for an implementation/transition period (the EU calls it transition because they don't feel the need to pretend everything will be agreed by March 2019 and then it just needs a bit of implementing).
Security is on the agenda. For the EU it's something to be considered along with judicial cooperation, law enforcement, the fight against terrorism and international crime, defence and foreign policy. For May "in security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened" which some, including the more strident UK press, took as a threat.
The rights of citizens (and their businesses) are a high priority, and agreement on the millions of expats must come early (though "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"). May's letter observes "there is obvious complexity in the discussions we are about to undertake" when she argues that the interests and rights of expats should be put first (contrasting with her reported hope to clear up residence etc rights over the weekend of the next EU summit).
The objectives for Northern Ireland seem pretty well identical, based on avoiding a hard border, though the EU will work "respecting the integrity of the [European] Union legal order" and "recognise existing bilateral agreements and arrangements between the United Kingdom and Ireland which are compatible with EU law" which means it's not just a bilateral thing between UK and Ireland.
The EU guidelines note that May doesn't want to be in the single market or customs union, and that there can be no cherry picking (both documents use the phrase). They work on from there (though there's some push back on the ECJ, which will no doubt cause some wrangling).
And what do they disagree on?
The EU intends the negotiations to be transparent. We know from many sources that May & co want nothing known until the end. Feedback and consultation between the bodies of the EU has been written into the process for a long time now, so May will be disappointed. For a rather overblown view of the way the EU sees the process, click on this diagram to enlarge it.
The various lines labelled "reports" and "informs" show official information flows, and leaks can't be ruled out (one of the recipients of information is one Nigel Farage, as leader of a party group in the parliament. Can he keep his mouth shut?)
The EU27 say nothing about May's sudden and inexplicable decision to withdraw from Euratom.
May intends to negotiate withdrawal and the future UK-EU relationship in parallel negotiations. The EU27 don't ("giving priority to an orderly withdrawal"). May argues (twice) that it should be easy because we are currently aligned and "only" need to "prioritise how we manage the evolution of our regulatory frameworks to maintain a fair and open trading environment, and how to resolve disputes." Here is the relevant paragraph from her letter:
"We recognise that it will be a challenge to reach such a comprehensive agreement within the two-year period set out for withdrawal discussions in the Treaty. But we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU. We start from a unique position in these discuss ions - close regulatory alignment, trust in one another's institutions, and a spirit of cooperation stretching back decades. It is for these reasons, and because the future partnership between the UK and the EU is of such importance to both sides, that I am sure it can be agreed in the time period set out by the Treaty."
One straw in the wind for May might be EU27's "In accordance with the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be settled separately". She might take this to include the future trade deal, but to the EU27 the Article 50 process is only about the withdrawal agreement.
The EU guidelines identify separate processes:
- negotiations on an orderly withdrawal
- preliminary and preparatory discussions on the framework for a future relationship
- [discussions of] any form of transitional arrangements
In EU thinking the integrity of the single market means there can be no sector-by-sector approach, and to preserve the rights of the Union, no separate negotiations with single countries are allowed. Both approaches have been raised from time to time as desirable to the UK.
The question of a financial settlement is a major difference between the parties. May's letter says they must "discuss how we determine a fair settlement of the UK's rights and obligations as a departing member state. The EU says there must be a single financial settlement taking into account "issues" from the multiannual financial framework (pre-agreed budget and priorities for 2014-2020), the European Investment Bank, the European Development Fund and the European Central Bank.
If we give any credence to the leaks about the dinner, May believes there's nothing to pay because there's nothing about it in the treaty. Is there anything in the treaty about expats' rights? It seems a strange argument.
The order of discussions in the EU guidelines is:
- citizens' rights, and "guarantees must be effective, enforceable, non-discriminatory and comprehensive"; some countries are reported to be concerned about holding the UK to commitments over time.
- financial settlement, with the loss of the UK contribution to what is in fact quite a small EU budget being a major concern
- Northern Ireland
- Other aspects of withdrawal, including rules for handling outstanding ECJ cases
- Then... when the EU Council decides enough progress has been made to be sure that a withdrawal agreement will be forthcoming, the shape of a future relationship and transitional arrangements until it is negotiated can be talked about - "preliminary and preparatory discussions on a framework", as they put it.
The requirement to agree any deal involving Gibraltar with Spain is still there, and the EU talks about Cyprus, where the UK maintains military bases with many Cypriot staff and with a free and easy arrangement on borders/periphery.
Another thing about the EU document is that it simply covers more. Article 50 is their process, so they've thought through the implications.
