A Meandering Commitment To High Standards?

 
 
 

Good afternoon,

Will the UK weaken rights and standards after the UK leaves the transition period? Are there benefits to a barebones trade deal with the EU over a no-deal scenario? We explore both in today's bulletin and as usual we have recommended reading for your Friday.

Enjoy,
Jacob

PLAY

In Politics

Is Any Deal Better Than No-Deal?

  • A barebones deal avoids some barriers to trade

  • Implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol is helped with a deal

  • Would create a base to work on other agreements e.g. reciprocal health care

Talks between the negotiators from the UK and the EU resumed this week with fisheries and the level playing field both on the agenda. There has been little progress over summer with the two sides still in disagreement over these core issues however if there is a deal to be done progress will have to be rapid as the EU needs it to be done by 31st October to allow time for ratification.

With such key disagreements remaining between the EU and the UK and just over two months to find compromise (meanwhile each side is still fighting coronavirus) there is a chance the UK could be facing leaving without a deal at the end of this year if agreement on the future relationship cannot be found in this short time frame. 

Alternatively it could be that a barebones deal is agreed to avoid a no-deal Brexit and allow Boris Johnson to go back to the UK with a deal he said he would achieve. Sam Lowe from the Centre for European Reform has analysed five advantages a basic trade deal would have over a no-deal Brexit.

When the UK leaves the transition period there will be new barriers to trade, regardless of a deal or not.This is because the UK will leave the single market and customs union. However while a trade deal would not prevent customs borders it could reduce both the tariff costs and also reduce the physical inspection requirements at the border. 

There are benefits for the UK financial sector too if a trade deal can enable “equivalence” where the EU recognises UKs regulations as equivalent to their own. This would enable easier trade of financial products, a sector that was 6.9% of the total economic output of the UK in 2018.

One of the most important benefits of a trade deal is that it would enable a more successful implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. While it is the UK’s responsibility for implementing the Protocol, it requires both sides to work together to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland. It is also legally binding to both the EU and the UK in both a deal or no-deal scenarios.

A trade deal could help facilitate the movement of goods from GB to NI and also from GB to EU via NI. If a good is at risk of moving from the GB to EU via NI then the good is subject to EU border controls and checks by the UK when they move from GB to NI. If, as part of the trade deal, the UK matches EU tariffs to other countries, the risk of undermining the EU single market could be minimised and this could reduce the number and strictness of checks and make trade between GB and NI easier, and therefore make the implementation of the Protocol easier too. 

As Lowe argues in his piece, a trade deal, even a barebones one, reduces some of the difficulties that will be faced by businesses and individuals at the end of the year and creates a base to build on going forward. This will be important for many issues outside of trading goods and services, such as reciprocal healthcare agreements. The choice between a deal and a no-deal is a political one the leaders of the UK and the EU make. 

In Policy

UK Rivers Pollution

  • Concern among campaigners that Environment Agency chief aims to weaken river protections after the UK leaves the transition period

  • Undermines the assurances from the UK in protecting environmental standards post-Brexit

The Guardian is reporting that the chief of the Environment Agency, Sir James Bevan, has endorsed proposals to weaken environmental protections of rivers once the UK has left the transition period. He has denied the claim. 

The proposal mooted by Bevan in his speech was to amend the EU water framework directive, which enforces strong tests on the cleanliness of rivers, to allow for a river to be marked as “good” if it reaches one of the four tests rather than all four tests as is currently the case. 

In a Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs press release / blog the department calls the claims inaccurate and misleading. According to their blog “He used the example of altering the Water Framework Directive (WFD) to encourage debate about how to better and more innovatively measure the health of our rivers so we can improve them.”

The core issue here is not the debate about what the chief of the Environment Agency said between the Guardian and a DEFRA blog but that the debate is happening at all. Time and time again the Government has assured people in the UK that leaving the EU will not result in a weakening of rights and standards, including environmental protections. The Conservative manifesto 2019 said the future relationship would allow us to “raise standards in areas like... the environment”. Assurances along these lines was the justification for the removal of protecting workers’ rights in the Withdrawal Agreement Bill which passed parliament this year.

These assurances are undermined when reforms that potentially weaken standards are mooted by officials. They are further undermined by the slow passage of bills such as the Environment Bill. The Committee is currently scheduled to report by Tuesday 29th September.  One of the aims of this Bill is to establish the Office for Environmental Protection. A body that needs to be up and running effectively by the end of the transition period. Taking this long to establish much needed bodies to replace areas previously enforced by the EU undermines the Government’s commitments to high standards once the UK leaves the transition period.

The Government needs to back its words with actions. When doing so it needs to properly engage with parliamentarians, expert organisations, devolved administrations and other key stakeholders. This will build trust and create a framework that all parties can trust that protects the rights and standards we all rely on.

Brexit Civil Society Alliance Survey

The Brexit Civil Society Alliance in its current form will conclude in January 2021.
 
Since the formation of the Brexit Civil Society Alliance in 2017 (then the Repeal Bill Alliance) we have been working together with civil society organisations to protect rights and standards and advocate for transparent lawmaking that places limits on executive powers and respects the devolution settlements during the Brexit process. We have done this through facilitating information sharing, regularly convening civil society organisations, coordinate joint policy asks, responding to Brexit legislation and engaging with policy-makers.
 
We are currently exploring what the role and shape of a UK-wide civil society alliance post-2020 may look like. We are therefore seeking the views of our members and civil society organisations in our wider networks and would welcome your ideas and suggestions as part of this survey. It is available here.

BCSA UKPSF Evidence Gathering

We, the Brexit Civil Society Alliance, are asking organisations who have received EU funding, such as the European Social Fund, to get in touch and share their experience. The UK Shared Prosperity Fund is expected to be announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review this Autumn to replace the EU funding. 

We want to build a network of organisations affected to share experiences and information on the UK Shared Prosperity Fund.

Please click here to share your experience and join us.

Recommended Reading

  • Wales issues stark warning over UK internal market in the FT

  • The government’s new white paper and the devolution settlement: pulling bricks from the Jenga tower in Prospect