24 October 2023

EU-UK Forum's Henig: Future UK-EU trade deals are inevitable, the real focus should be on their impact

Travelling between London and Brussels, the mismatch in trade policy conversation is not about developing the UK-EU relationship, but how much the subject is raised. In Brussels the UK will almost never be mentioned, whereas in London the conversation will almost always go to matters EU.

Such is the lot of EU neighbours, for the same happens with Turkey, Switzerland, Norway, and accession countries. Of course, the UK is special as an ex-member, large economy and security partner, but Turkey is also special as the longest serving accession state with a significant integrated economy. Switzerland is the only country landlocked by the EU, and Norway as the most important country in the single market but not the EU.

Other special third-country relationships for the EU clearly include the US, probably China, and those with whom there are Free Trade and Association Agreements in place or being negotiated. One can indeed argue that virtually all third countries are in some way special, meaning none of us really are.

Having a review clause in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement equally does not distinguish the UK. Such clauses are seen in numerous EU treaties, enough to entirely occupy the negotiating capacity of the Commission were they to mean full renegotiations, a reason this isn’t what they mean.

Insofar as there is a place in which all EU third-country relationships come together, it is the weekly meetings of the Trade Policy Committee of Member States and the Commission. Once a month senior officials will mostly come from their capitals to discuss substantive issues at a full meeting. As important are the meetings in between of ‘deputies’, usually from their permanent representations, where they are consulted on progress across all files.

Equivalent in the European Parliament is the International Trade Committee, where a range of topics are discussed in each regular meeting. Members typically go into greater detail than their UK equivalents on the details, setting out positions and quizzing officials. Just as per Member States, MEPs must broadly or specifically approve the proposed courses of action.

However, while Member States and MEPs express opinions and agree outcomes, the Commission deliberately maintains an iron grip on actual third country negotiations, to maintain unity. Direct Member State involvement is strongly discouraged, though the EU itself often likes to confuse third countries by suggesting otherwise. When it comes to improving relations with any third country, Brussels is the key city, not Berlin, Paris, or Warsaw even though they have influence....

 more at EU-UK Forum

© EU-UK Forum