This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/09/david-davis-complains-of-eu-discrimination-in-leaked-letter
The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Brussels accuses David Davis of hypocrisy over EU discrimination claim | Brussels accuses David Davis of hypocrisy over EU discrimination claim |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| David Davis’s claim in a leaked letter to the prime minister that the EU is discriminating against the UK and damaging its economic interests by preparing for a no-deal scenario in March 2019 has been met with flat denials and accusations of hypocrisy in Brussels. | David Davis’s claim in a leaked letter to the prime minister that the EU is discriminating against the UK and damaging its economic interests by preparing for a no-deal scenario in March 2019 has been met with flat denials and accusations of hypocrisy in Brussels. |
| The European commission’s chief spokesman, Margaritis Schinas, expressed surprise at the content of the letter and insisted it was only natural for the bloc to prepare for a situation threatened repeatedly by Downing Street. | |
| It had emerged in a letter obtained by the Financial Times that the government has taken advice on the legality of EU warnings to businesses that Britain would be treated as a “third country” after March 2019. | It had emerged in a letter obtained by the Financial Times that the government has taken advice on the legality of EU warnings to businesses that Britain would be treated as a “third country” after March 2019. |
| Davis claims in his letter that the EU’s warnings could jeopardise existing contracts or even force British companies to move to the continent. | Davis claims in his letter that the EU’s warnings could jeopardise existing contracts or even force British companies to move to the continent. |
| By treating the UK differently from other member states before it leaves the bloc, Davis suggests the EU had been acting “in a way which is frequently damaging to UK interests”. | By treating the UK differently from other member states before it leaves the bloc, Davis suggests the EU had been acting “in a way which is frequently damaging to UK interests”. |
| He said he would be seeking a withdrawal of warnings to businesses that did not make it clear that there would be a transition period and that the UK was seeking a new trading relationship. | |
| In response, Schinas told reporters in Brussels: “Here in the European commission we are somehow surprised that the UK is surprised that we are preparing for a scenario announced by the UK government itself. | In response, Schinas told reporters in Brussels: “Here in the European commission we are somehow surprised that the UK is surprised that we are preparing for a scenario announced by the UK government itself. |
| The UK could sign up to all the EU’s rules and regulations, staying in the single market – which provides, free movement of goods, services and people – and the customs union, in which EU members agree tariffs on external states. Freedom of movement would continue and the UK would keep paying into the Brussels pot. We would continue to have unfettered access to EU trade, but the pledge to “take back control” of laws, borders and money would not have been fulfilled. This is an unlikely outcome and one that may be possible only by reversing the Brexit decision, after a second referendum or election. | The UK could sign up to all the EU’s rules and regulations, staying in the single market – which provides, free movement of goods, services and people – and the customs union, in which EU members agree tariffs on external states. Freedom of movement would continue and the UK would keep paying into the Brussels pot. We would continue to have unfettered access to EU trade, but the pledge to “take back control” of laws, borders and money would not have been fulfilled. This is an unlikely outcome and one that may be possible only by reversing the Brexit decision, after a second referendum or election. |
| Britain could follow Norway, which is in the single market, is subject to freedom of movement rules and pays a fee to Brussels – but is outside the customs union. That combination would tie Britain to EU regulations but allow it to sign trade deals of its own. A “Norway-minus” deal is more likely. That would see the UK leave the single market and customs union and end free movement of people. But Britain would align its rules and regulations with Brussels, hoping this would allow a greater degree of market access. The UK would still be subject to EU rules. | Britain could follow Norway, which is in the single market, is subject to freedom of movement rules and pays a fee to Brussels – but is outside the customs union. That combination would tie Britain to EU regulations but allow it to sign trade deals of its own. A “Norway-minus” deal is more likely. That would see the UK leave the single market and customs union and end free movement of people. But Britain would align its rules and regulations with Brussels, hoping this would allow a greater degree of market access. The UK would still be subject to EU rules. |
| A comprehensive trade deal like the one handed to Canada would help British traders, as it would lower or eliminate tariffs. But there would be little on offer for the UK services industry. It is a bad outcome for financial services. Such a deal would leave Britain free to diverge from EU rules and regulations but that in turn would lead to border checks and the rise of other “non-tariff barriers” to trade. It would leave Britain free to forge new trade deals with other nations. Many in Brussels see this as a likely outcome, based on Theresa May’s direction so far. | A comprehensive trade deal like the one handed to Canada would help British traders, as it would lower or eliminate tariffs. But there would be little on offer for the UK services industry. It is a bad outcome for financial services. Such a deal would leave Britain free to diverge from EU rules and regulations but that in turn would lead to border checks and the rise of other “non-tariff barriers” to trade. It would leave Britain free to forge new trade deals with other nations. Many in Brussels see this as a likely outcome, based on Theresa May’s direction so far. |
| Britain leaves with no trade deal, meaning that all trade is governed by World Trade Organisation rules. Tariffs would be high, queues at the border long and the Irish border issue severe. In the short term, British aircraft might be unable to fly to some European destinations. The UK would quickly need to establish bilateral agreements to deal with the consquences, but the country would be free to take whatever future direction it wishes. It may need to deregulate to attract international business – a very different future and a lot of disruption. | Britain leaves with no trade deal, meaning that all trade is governed by World Trade Organisation rules. Tariffs would be high, queues at the border long and the Irish border issue severe. In the short term, British aircraft might be unable to fly to some European destinations. The UK would quickly need to establish bilateral agreements to deal with the consquences, but the country would be free to take whatever future direction it wishes. It may need to deregulate to attract international business – a very different future and a lot of disruption. |
| “After all, it was PM May herself who said in her Lancaster House speech in January 2017 and repeated in her Florence speech in September that, and I quote: ‘No deal is better than a bad deal for Britain. It is right that the government should prepare for every eventuality’. | |
| “We take these words from the prime minister very seriously. It is therefore only natural that in this house we also prepare for every eventuality.” | “We take these words from the prime minister very seriously. It is therefore only natural that in this house we also prepare for every eventuality.” |
| Asked whether, the commission recognised the allegations of discrimination and would be retracting warnings to businesses, the official added: “No.” | Asked whether, the commission recognised the allegations of discrimination and would be retracting warnings to businesses, the official added: “No.” |
| The European parliament’s Brexit coordinator, Guy Verhofstadt, told the Guardian that it was the UK government that was guilty of damaging the UK’s economic interests. He defended the bloc’s right to prepare for the worst-case scenario. | The European parliament’s Brexit coordinator, Guy Verhofstadt, told the Guardian that it was the UK government that was guilty of damaging the UK’s economic interests. He defended the bloc’s right to prepare for the worst-case scenario. |
| It has been reported that on Tuesday May will appoint a minister for no deal as part of her highly criticised government reshuffle. | It has been reported that on Tuesday May will appoint a minister for no deal as part of her highly criticised government reshuffle. |
| Verhofstadt said: “Businesses’ uncertainty has been created, on both sides of the channel, because of the UK government’s decision to check out of the largest single market in the global economy, not because of the EU’s contingency planning. | Verhofstadt said: “Businesses’ uncertainty has been created, on both sides of the channel, because of the UK government’s decision to check out of the largest single market in the global economy, not because of the EU’s contingency planning. |
| “From the very beginning both prime minister May and David Davis have repeatedly stated that no deal is better than a bad deal, so everybody must understand that it is only fair that we plan for this threat.” | |
| In his letter, Davis concedes that the advice from government lawyers is that any move to challenge the European commission in the courts would be “high risk” but he adds that the UK “cannot let these actions go unchallenged”. | In his letter, Davis concedes that the advice from government lawyers is that any move to challenge the European commission in the courts would be “high risk” but he adds that the UK “cannot let these actions go unchallenged”. |
| Zsolt Darvas, a senior fellow at the Bruegel thinktank in Brussels, said he could see no issue with warnings to businesses, but that the UK government could have a case where British companies were not given contracts on EU programmes, such as the €10bn (£8.8bn) satellite programme Galileo, due to the uncertainty. | Zsolt Darvas, a senior fellow at the Bruegel thinktank in Brussels, said he could see no issue with warnings to businesses, but that the UK government could have a case where British companies were not given contracts on EU programmes, such as the €10bn (£8.8bn) satellite programme Galileo, due to the uncertainty. |
| Last year, it emerged that the European commission was demanding the right to cancel contracts without penalty if a supplier was no longer based in an EU member state, creating potential uncertainty for both British businesses and officials in charge of commissioning. | |
| Darvas, an expert in EU governance and finance, said: “That could be some form of discrimination. But we have to emphasise that this is comparatively a small amount of money. The UK can do the most to prevent discrimination. The UK needs to come forward with details of what sort of transition period it wants.” | Darvas, an expert in EU governance and finance, said: “That could be some form of discrimination. But we have to emphasise that this is comparatively a small amount of money. The UK can do the most to prevent discrimination. The UK needs to come forward with details of what sort of transition period it wants.” |