The implications of the transition should be of grave concern. What is proposed is not only an existential threat that could see our fishing industry culled, but a diplomatic and constitutional suicide pill the result of which would be an anathema not only to “taking back control” but to the point of a transition itself.
A transition is not part of leaving the EU under Article 50 – it is part of a new ‘transition’ treaty as both David Davis and Steve Baker have candidly admitted. This is significant as it means we will not be party to current agreements, but the transition is a new treaty that stands alone.
The EU terms are the UK must adhere to all EU law but as we will no longer be an EU member should have no say. This is the EU sensibly safeguarding its interests – our government is doing the opposite.
The implications of Clause 14 and 15 of the transition terms have a severe impact on all international agreements the UK is party to through the EU.
They defeat the whole raison-d’etre of HM Government for a transition – trade. For the fishing industry it means the “transition” could void UK participation in all international fisheries agreements that we were party to as a member of the EU.
“Clause 14. During the transition period the United Kingdom will remain bound by the obligations stemming from the agreements concluded by the Union…while the United Kingdom should however no longer participate in any bodies set up by those agreements.”
The intention is that the UK will still have obligations to the EU to adhere to the consequences of agreements concluded with non-EU countries in respect of the EU vs UK transitional relationship. In doing so this maintains the integrity of the EUs dominions and also appears to placate the UK position of everything continuing as is.
However, since the withdrawal agreement cannot bind non-EU countries, they will no longer have obligations to the UK as we will no longer be an official member of the EU but merely maintaining regulatory alignment in an EU vs UK deal.
The UK would only be able to be recognised within such agreements if other non-EU countries agree to continuing existing obligations in force through another agreement with the UK.
The negotiation of such an agreement between the UK and non-EU ‘third countries’ is the subject of the next transition Clause 15 which seemingly makes that an impossible contradiction.
“Clause 15. Any transitional arrangements require the United Kingdom’s continued participation in the Customs Union and the Single Market (with all four freedoms) during the transition. During the transition period, the United Kingdom may not become bound by international agreements entered into in its own capacity in the fields of competence of Union law, unless authorised to do so by the Union.”
The UK will be unable to negotiate and sign treaties within the transitional period, even if those treaties only come into force afterward – we will only be able to begin to negotiate treaties after the transition period.
This means that other non-EU nations will have no obligations to recognise the UK being party to agreements signed by the EU as the UK will no longer be an official member but also a ‘third country’ when the ‘treaties shall cease to apply’ under Article 50 and our membership terminates on the 29th March 2019.
However, the catch-22 paradox is that to obey the transition the UK will not be able to enter into any agreements with other non-EU countries to seek recognition that the UK is party to EU arrangements with those countries even if they wanted to.
This means we will be on WTO terms for 65% of our trade and unable to sign new deals — which is the whole reason locking ourselves into the EU was meant to avoid!
In respect of fisheries this could mean any agreements the EU has signed with other coastal states would no longer be binding for the UK as we wouldn’t be officially a member only a vassal state which has agreed to maintain regulatory alignment with the CFP.
This catch 22 between Clause 14 and 15 means the UK could lose agreements on access to Norwegian and Faroese waters for our pelagic and largest whitefish vessels.
The EU can’t be any clearer that this is the case.
As part of the EU Commission document ‘Internal EU27 preparatory discussions on the framework for the future relationship: “International Agreements” 6thFebruary 2018’ the EU makes explicit the consequences regarding international agreements concluded by the EU:
“Point 13: “Following the withdrawal, the United Kingdom will no longer be covered by agreements concluded by the Union or by Member States acting on its behalf or by the Union and its Member States acting jointly”.
The EU then continues:
“In principle, as a non-Member State, the UK would be able to negotiate international agreements But
- the bona fide application of the Withdrawal Agreement prohibits conflicting obligations
- duty of sincere cooperation
iii. explicit provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement: “During the transition period, the UK may not become bound by international agreements entered into in its own capacity in the fields of competence of Union law, unless authorised to do so by the Union.”
The Withdrawal Agreement can oblige the UK to respect “the obligations stemming from the agreements” However, the Withdrawal Agreement cannot guarantee the extension of the benefits from those international agreements to the UK!
It cannot be any clearer!
How will the UK be party to continuing EU deals?
How will the UK be able to seek and agree recognition with other non-EU third countries?
[To be continued in Part II tomorrow.]