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 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/12/david-davis-has-damaged-trust-in-the-uk-for-brexit-talks-says-verhofstadt

The article has changed 13 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
David Davis has damaged trust in UK, says Verhofstadt David Davis scrambles to salvage EU relations after 'damaging trust'
(about 4 hours later)
David Davis’s claim that the UK’s concessions in an agreement to move on the Brexit negotiations were merely a statement of intent has damaged trust and will see a hardening of positions in Brussels, the European parliament’s coordinator, Guy Verhofstadt, has said. David Davis has scrambled to salvage relations with Brussels after he was accused of damaging trust in the Brexit talks by making inflammatory comments over the status of Britain’s promises.
The former Belgian prime minister claimed the Brexit secretary’s comments over the weekend were “unacceptable”, and undermined confidence in the British government’s trustworthiness. The Brexit secretary engaged in urgent telephone diplomacy on Tuesday in an attempt to persuade Guy Verhofstadt, the European parliament’s Brexit coordinator, that the UK government’s word could be depended upon.
The member states will now agree a tougher wording in their guidelines about the next stage of the talks, due to be signed off at a summit of leaders on Friday, Verhofstadt said. Brussels has been deeply irritated by Davis’s claim over the weekend that the UK’s concessions in an agreement struck last week with the EU to move talks on were merely a statement of intent without legal backing.
EU ministers are meeting in Brussels on Tuesday to discuss the text to be put before leaders on Friday morning. Leaked copies of the latest draft guidelines suggest that talks about a future relationship will only start after an EU leaders at a summit in March. In an unusual move, the European parliament’s main parties announced on Tuesday morning that they had drawn up an amendment on their Brexit resolution, on which MEPs will vote on Wednesday, personally condemning the Brexit secretary for damaging trust.
“As someone said, it’s an own goal,” Verhofstadt said. “It is clear that the European council will be more strict now. It is saying: ‘Yeah, OK, these are our intentions, our commitments, we want these commitments translated into legal text before we make progress in the second stage.’ That is now the position of the council. I have seen a hardening of the position of the council and there will be a hardening of the position of the parliament.” Verhofstadt, a former Belgian prime minister, further claimed in a press conference in Strasbourg that the Brexit secretary’s comments were “unacceptable” and would provoke a wider hardening of the EU’s positions, including in the member states’ guidelines for the future relationship, to be signed off on by leaders on Friday.
The European parliament is to vote on a draft resolution on Wednesday and this will also be amended so as to condemn the comments and demand swift legal assurances from the UK, he added.
The proposed amendments claim that in “calling the outcome of phase one of the negotiations a mere ‘statement of intent’”, Davis’s intervention threatened “to undermine the good faith that has been built during the negotiations”.
After @DavidDavisMP’s unacceptable remarks, it’s time the UK government restores trust. These amendements will further toughen up our resolution. pic.twitter.com/zKfVlJtOi5After @DavidDavisMP’s unacceptable remarks, it’s time the UK government restores trust. These amendements will further toughen up our resolution. pic.twitter.com/zKfVlJtOi5
They add that “the negotiations must be conducted in good faith … negotiations can only progress during the second phase if the UK government also fully respects the commitments it made … and they are fully translated into the draft withdrawal agreement”. Davis later made public details of a conversation on Tuesday afternoon with Verhofstadt, who is leading the steering group of the European parliament, which will have a veto on any future withdrawal agreement.
Verhofstadt, the leader of the liberal group in the European parliament, said: “We will introduce amendments concerning the - for us - unacceptable description by David Davis of this agreement, saying it was merely a statement of intent rather than a legally enforceable text. And in our opinion that is really undermining the trust that is necessary in such negotiations.” The British cabinet minister tweeted: “Pleasure, as ever, to speak to my friend [Guy Verhofstadt] we both agreed on the importance of the joint report. Let’s work together to get it converted into legal text as soon as possible.”
Davis’s comments had come on Sunday in response to reports that some hardline Brexiters in the UK had been assured by the British government that assurances that Northern Ireland would maintain “full alignment” with EU law in future were meaningless. An EU official later said that the guidelines for talks on future relations that had been drafted were already “minister Davis proofed”, and it was clear what the consequences were if commitments were “not respected”.
The Brexit secretary explained that the joint agreement struck with the European commission on the Irish border, citizens’ rights and the financial settlement, was “more a statement of intent than it was a legally enforceable thing”. The circulated draft includes the demand that “negotiations in the second phase can only progress as long as all commitments undertaken during the first phase are respected in full and translated faithfully in legal terms as quickly as possible”.
The comments, while accurate, caused consternation in Dublin and prompted the European commission to remind the prime minister in a statement that she had “shaken hands” on a “gentlemen’s agreement” last Friday. The latest draft also makes clear that talks about a future relationship will only start after an EU leaders at a summit in March, and that the leaders will make a “last call” on Friday to the British cabinet to offer a clear vision of the future.
Davis subsequently told LBC radio on Monday that his comments had been misinterpreted and twisted. An EU official said: “We expect more clarity on the end state, on the end objective. … Until now it is no single market, no customs union but a bespoke partnership. If no new elements will come from London then we will work on that basis. The basis of no customs union, single market.”
The row over Davis’s comments could not have come at a more sensitive time, with EU ministers and the commission’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, discussing their statement in Brussels ahead of this week’s summit.
Verhofstadt told reporters: “As someone said, it’s an own goal. It is clear that the European council will be more strict now … I have seen a hardening of the position of the council and there will be a hardening of the position of the parliament.”
Under the proposed amendments to the parliament’s resolution, MEPs will claim that in “calling the outcome of phase one of the negotiations a mere ‘statement of intent’”, Davis’s intervention threatened “to undermine the good faith that has been built during the negotiations”.
Verhofstadt said: “We will introduce amendments concerning the – for us – unacceptable description by David Davis of this agreement, saying it was merely a statement of intent rather than a legally enforceable text. And in our opinion that is really undermining the trust that is necessary in such negotiations.”
Separately, the German government chided Theresa May for giving Britons a different version of events from those she agreed in Brussels at a breakthrough meeting on negotiation talks last Friday.
The Europe minister Michael Roth of the Social Democrats told German media he was “somewhat taken aback” that the language May used in Brussels “differed somewhat” to what she had since said in London, referring in particular to May’s suggestion on Monday that Britain would only pay the final bill to the EU once a trade agreement had been reached.
If the UK has a change of heart, it could sign up to all the EU’s rules and regulations, staying in the EU’s single market and customs union. 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.If the UK has a change of heart, it could sign up to all the EU’s rules and regulations, staying in the EU’s single market and customs union. 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. 
“I said this was a statement of intent, which was much more than just legally enforceable,” he said. “Of course it’s legally enforceable under the withdrawal agreement, but even if that didn’t happen for some reason, if something went wrong, we would still be seeking to provide a frictionless, invisible border with Ireland. Davis made his comments on Sunday in response to reports that some hardline Brexiters in the UK had been told by the British government that assurances that Northern Ireland would maintain “full alignment” with EU law in future were meaningless.
“I was making the point it was much more than what’s just in the treaty, it’s what we want to do anyway.” The Brexit secretary explained that the joint agreement struck with the European commission on the Irish border, citizens’ rights and the financial settlement, was “more a statement of intent than it was a legally enforceable thing”.
Draft guidelines had already included a clause making clear that the EU did not expect any “backsliding” from the UK government. The comments caused consternation in Dublin and prompted the European commission to remind the prime minister in a statement that she had “shaken hands” on a “gentlemen’s agreement” last Friday.
It said: “Negotiations in the second phase can only progress as long as all commitments undertaken during the first phase are respected in full and translated faithfully in legal terms as quickly as possible.” Davis subsequently told LBC radio on Monday that his comments had been misinterpreted and twisted.
It is now been suggested that the member states will insist that the UK swiftly starts drafting the relevant parts of the withdrawal agreement in the new year in order to maintain the EU’s trust as talks on a transition phase begin. “I said this was a statement of intent, which was much more than just legally enforceable,” he said. “Of course it’s legally enforceable under the withdrawal agreement, but even if that didn’t happen for some reason, if something went wrong, we would still be seeking to provide a frictionless, invisible border with Ireland.”
The Liberal Democrat’s Brexit spokesman, Tom Brake MP, said: “David Davis has endangered the entire divorce agreement because he couldn’t resist playing to the Brexit gallery and because the cabinet can’t even agree among itself what kind of Brexit it wants. The Liberal Democrats’ Brexit spokesman, Tom Brake, said: “David Davis has endangered the entire divorce agreement because he couldn’t resist playing to the Brexit gallery and because the cabinet can’t even agree among itself what kind of Brexit it wants.
“The sheer incompetence and chaos coming from the government is unprecedented in my lifetime. Every time David Davis speaks, the Brexit divorce grows worse for Britain.”“The sheer incompetence and chaos coming from the government is unprecedented in my lifetime. Every time David Davis speaks, the Brexit divorce grows worse for Britain.”