Leaked EU cables reveal growing mistrust of UK in
Brexit talks
Brussels suspicions come as European commission chief
warns Britain to abide by Northern Ireland protocol
Daniel
Boffey in Brussels and Jessica Elgot and Heather Stewart in London
Mon 7 Sep
2020 22.38 BSTFirst published on Mon 7 Sep 2020 20.26 BST
Brussels’
plummeting trust in Boris Johnson has been laid bare in leaked diplomatic
cables obtained by the Guardian, as the Brexit negotiations reopen in London
with a warning from the European commission president that Britain must respect
international law.
Ursula von
der Leyen made her extraordinary intervention on Monday as Downing Street
struggled to control the damage from disclosures suggesting it was backtracking
on agreements made last year to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.
“I trust
the British government to implement the withdrawal agreement, an obligation
under international law & prerequisite for any future partnership,” Von der
Leyen posted on Twitter. “[The] protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland is
essential to protect peace and stability on the island & integrity of the
single market.”
The row
over plans that could undermine the legal force of parts of the protocol on
Northern Ireland came as leaked cables seen by the Guardian reveal the growing
suspicion in Brussels of Britain’s motivations and strategy, said by sources to
have been further damaged by the latest developments.
According
to cables sent to EU capitals from Brussels in recent days:
Johnson is
suspected of holding back on finding a compromise on the key outstanding issues
of fisheries, state aid and dispute resolution until the last moment in order
to achieve a last-minute “trade off”. The strategy has been described by
officials in the chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier’s team as “concerning”
given the complexity of the issues. “These points will not be easy to iron out
with just a phone call between leaders,” a commission official had told EU
diplomats. “It is leaving it too late.”
The
European commission fears the home secretary, Priti Patel, will attempt to go
round Brussels and open side negotiations on internal security after inviting
ministers from the five largest EU member states to a meeting in London on 22
September. Commission officials have asked the capitals to avoid agreeing to
any British proposals that are made there. “We need to be clear that nothing can
be decided in those fields subject to negotiation,” officials advised.
The UK is
accused of recently “introducing” a new “concept” in the negotiations over
access to British waters for European fishing fleets under which “80% of the
common stocks” have been designated as “priority stocks” on which British
fishermen have the biggest claim.
The
commission fears Downing Street is behind a barrage of anti-EU articles in the
British press, citing reports accusing Brussels of intransigence directly ahead
of the last round of talks. The recent talks between Barnier and the UK’s chief
negotiator, David Frost, were described by the commission as “disappointing”.
The
revelations provide the worst possible backdrop to the latest round of
negotiations, which start in London on Tuesday, with Frost reiterating on
Monday night the two sides “must make progress this week if we are to reach an
agreement in time”.
Although
Frost urged the EU to show “more realism about our status as an independent
country”, the eve of the talks was dominated by the fallout from the proposals
in the government’s internal market bill, due to be published on Wednesday.
The former
Conservative chancellor Philip Hammond and the ex-justice secretary David Gauke
added their voices to growing opposition to the draft legislation, which
critics claim will negate key parts of the withdrawal agreement.
Gauke said
the government would be “taking the most extraordinary risk” if it sought to
unilaterally change the protocol through draft legislation due to be published
on Wednesday.
“Any
attempt to backslide from the commitments made in the Northern Ireland protocol
would be seen as an act of bad faith by the EU and the wider world,” he said.
“It would undermine trust and likely result not just in no deal, but an
acrimonious no deal.”
Hammond
tweeted that the government should avoid an “incredibly dangerous step” that he
claimed would “hugely damage our standing on the world stage”.
Business
leaders also warned that a Brexit deal was essential for safeguarding Britain’s
economic recovery from the coronavirus outbreak and avoiding higher prices in
the shops for British consumers as pressure mounts on household finances.
Josh
Hardie, deputy director general of the CBI, said: “Amid all the noise and
negotiations, businesses in the UK and EU remain clear – a good deal is
essential. An agreement will be the foundation for post-Covid recovery across
the continent.”
Furthermore,
manufacturers warned that Brexit stockpiles had been depleted during the Covid
lockdown and that many firms were running out of cash and time to prepare for
leaving the EU. Retailers warned that the price of food and drink could rise
due to border disruption, the imposition of tariffs and a weaker pound.
“A no deal
would be the worst outcome for consumers. It would add hundreds of millions of
pounds in tariffs to the cost of the food in British supermarkets, which would
lead to higher prices and disproportionally hit the poorest households,” said
Andrew Opie, director of food and sustainability at the British Retail
Consortium.
The pound
fell on Monday as City investors bet on the growing likelihood of the UK
leaving the Brexit transition without a deal. Sterling fell about 1% against
the US dollar on Monday to trade below $1.32, and fell by a similar amount
against the euro to below €1.12 on the international currency markets.
With
critics accusing Downing Street of seeking to blow up the talks by looking to
rewrite the hard-negotiated Northern Ireland protocol, government sources were
quick to deny it was part of a negotiating strategy, in a sign of some panic at
the extent of the backlash. “We have never seen it in those terms,” one senior
government source said. “That idea has not come from anyone even close to this
place.”
UK
officials on Monday morning repeatedly stressed how minor the changes will be
in the three key areas. The internal market bill will give ministers the power
to decide whether or not potential state subsidies need to be reported to the
EU, what counts as “at risk” goods that will need to be checked when crossing
the Irish Sea, and whether export summary declarations need to be filled in.
If no
mutual agreement can be reached by the joint committee with the EU, then
ministers are likely to define those terms very narrowly, in the UK’s
interests.
The
withdrawal agreement currently stipulates, in contrast, that all goods should
be deemed at risk of tariffs in the event of a lack of agreement within the
committee.
“These are
not changes made in good faith,” one EU official said. “But we will see what
they actually do.”
A UK official
briefed on the new powers insisted, however, that Westminster did not believe
the new powers undermined the protocol agreed in December.
“The
government is completely committed, as it always has been, to implementing the
NI protocol in good faith,” the official said. “If we don’t take these steps,
we face the prospect of legal confusion at the end of the year and potentially
extremely damaging defaults, including tariffs on goods moving from GB to
Northern Ireland.”
A No 10
spokesman insisted that the measures were “limited and reasonable” and that the
UK would remain compliant with the Northern Ireland protocol. Another official
described them as “minor clarifications in an extremely specific area” –
comments aimed at bringing down the temperature in Brussels and Dublin.
Hardline
Brexiters who initially welcomed the prospect of unpicking the agreement, a
move some had been promised was possible when voting for the deal, were
irritated by the Downing Street briefing that the changes were minor. “I’d like
the UK to make promises it wants to keep,” one senior Brexiteer said.
The former
Brexit secretary David Davis said: “I would be inclined to repudiate large
parts of the withdrawal agreement, because they were agreed on the basis that
there would be a trade deal.” He argued that should include ripping up the
financial settlement if no trade deal is reached. But Davis questioned the
prime minister’s chief aide Dominic Cummings’ focus on securing control over
state aid, something No 10 is keen to use to build up the UK’s tech industry,
calling it “intrinsically un-conservative”.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário