Sir, – Frank Schnittger(October 17th) raised some objections to my "tongue-in-cheek" advice to Theresa May about Brexit ("Whitehall's Brexit advice to Theresa May", Opinion & Analysis, October 14th).
He is, of course, right to point out that the EU regards the four freedoms as indivisible. I agree with that, but the EU cannot demand that a state which is no longer a member should continue to take the same view. The EU trades with many states that do not attach the same value to the combination of these freedoms. The purpose of the UK’s proposed “Great Repeal Bill” is clearly to lay the groundwork for an agreement with the EU on mutual recognition of standards post-Brexit unless and until the UK makes any specific change. It would be extremely difficult for the EU to argue that standards which it accepted up to the point of Brexit would no longer be recognised on the day after. Such recognition would not require the conclusion of a new trade agreement; all it needs is a bit of common sense.
Mr Schnittger casts doubt on the possibility of the UK simply taking over the terms of existing EU agreements with other trading partners. He does not explain why any other country would decide to treat the UK differently in trade matters simply because it had exited the EU. True, the situation in regard to new trade agreements with the UK would be more complex, but consider the CETA agreement with Canada. Conclusion of that agreement between the EU and Canada has (so far) been stymied as a result of its rejection by the regional parliament in Wallonia – EU ratification requires unanimity among the member states, and Belgium cannot now ratify because of the decision in Wallonia.
My guess is that the UK would signal its agreement to CETA post-Brexit. I hardly think that Canada would not welcome such a decision. Australia has signalled that a UK-Australia trade deal would happen post-Brexit. The UK is leading a group of northern European member states in an attempt to moderate the commission’s proposals for tough anti-dumping measures against China. That could facilitate a UK-China understanding post-Brexit.
Mr Schnittger correctly points out that I made no mention of passporting rights in the EU and euro zone for UK financial service providers. I did, however, suggest that the City of London might not be without leverage in a negotiation.
The purpose of my “tongue-in-cheek” piece was to point out that there are viable options for the UK, for which we should be prepared. – Yours, etc,
ALAN DUKES,
Tully West,
Kildare.