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/2020/feb/25/keep-chlorinated-chicken-ban-to-win-trade-deal-eu-tells-uk

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
EU demands UK keep chlorinated chicken ban to get trade deal Barnier pours scorn on Johnson's spokesman ahead of trade talks
(about 5 hours later)
Exclusive: clause in negotiating mandate for Michel Barnier will create hurdle to US-UK deal EU negotiator signals future relationship negotiations are on course for acrimonious start
The EU will demand that the UK maintains a ban on chlorinated chicken as the price for a trade agreement with Brussels, in a move that protects European meat exports and creates an obstacle to a deal with Donald Trump. Negotiations over Britain’s future relationship with the EU appear on course for an acrimonious start after Michel Barnier poured scorn on Boris Johnson’s spokesman and suggested the new Northern Ireland secretary did not understand the withdrawal agreement.
Barnier said he expected the talks, starting on Monday, to be “very difficult” but pronounced Brussels as “ready” following the official sign-off by EU ministers of their instructions for their chief negotiator.
In an impassioned press conference during which he repeatedly banged on his lectern for emphasis, Barnier said the UK’s implementation of the agreement for avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland was a prerequisite for any trade deal.
Brandon Lewis, the Northern Ireland secretary, had claimed over the weekend there would be no border of any sort in the Irish Sea and promised “unfettered” trade after the UK leaves the single market and customs union at the end of the year.
“I think there are reasons for us to remain vigilant because the British minister in charge of Northern Ireland has come up with some very surprising statements,” Barnier said, noting the need for infrastructure to be erected for the necessary checks on goods.
“I would like him to take some time to read through the withdrawal agreement in some detail and he will see that commitments have been entered into by both parties to resolve what I call the squaring of the circle.”
The two sides had agreed in the withdrawal agreement – an international treaty – to enforce the the EU’s customs code on trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in order to avoid the need for a hard border with the Republic of Ireland.
Barnier also raised with reporters comments made on Tuesday by a Downing Street spokesman in which it was claimed that the goal of the UK in the negotiations was to secure British independence from the EU. Johnson’s chief negotiator, David Frost, has also in recent days spoken of the importance of the UK as a “sovereign equal” being untied from EU standards under a free trade deal.
Barnier said the EU was not seeking to retain any hold over the UK but that the prime minister had already committed to maintaining EU standards “less than six months ago”.
“Mr Johnson’s spokesman said the main objective of the UK in these negotiations is to ensure that we obtain the economic and political independence of the United Kingdom on 1 January this year, but, no, that is not true,” Barnier said. “The economic and political independence of the UK doesn’t need to be negotiated on its been done, it’s been achieved, that’s what Brexit has achieved. It was the will of the UK and they’ve left.
“Nobody’s going to discuss the sovereignty the independence or the autonomy of the UK that’s not the purpose of these negotiations. I was very surprised to read this, supposedly something that was said by a spokesman from Downing Street.”
Barnier said the task was to put into legal text the commitments made by both sides in a 26-page political declaration on the future relationship, including the “robust” provisions to ensure Britain did not undercut the EU rulebook on workers’ and environmental standards and subsidies.
With reference to the prime minister’s refusal to extend the transition period beyond 2020, Barnier added: “If we want to succeed in the very short period of time that Mr Johnson has chosen we need to make sure we don’t start backtracking.”
Under the EU’s vision of the future relationship, both sides will commit not to reduce their current standards. Brussels would retain the right to apply tariffs on the UK if there were “disruptions of the equal condition of competition” as EU law develops and the UK fails to follow that “reference point”. On state aid rules, the UK would need to “dynamically align” with EU law.
The UK will publish its vision of the future deal on Thursday but the government has said it will reject any deal that involves alignment on policy or Britain remaining under the jurisdiction of the European court of justice. The UK is insisting that a Canada-style trade deal, with looser provisions on ensuring a competitive level playing field, is the most appropriate option.
Barnier said the levels of trade with the UK were 10 times bigger than Canada. “At the same time Canada is some 5,000km away. It is clear that the rules cannot be the same.”
Earlier in the day, the Guardian had revealed that the EU is also demanding the UK maintains a ban on chlorinated chicken as the price for a trade agreement with Brussels, in a move that protects European meat exports and creates an obstacle to a deal with Donald Trump.
On the recommendation of France, a clause has been inserted into the EU’s negotiating mandate to insist that both sides maintain “health and product sanitary quality in the food and agriculture sector”, according to a copy leaked to the Guardian.On the recommendation of France, a clause has been inserted into the EU’s negotiating mandate to insist that both sides maintain “health and product sanitary quality in the food and agriculture sector”, according to a copy leaked to the Guardian.
The paragraph, in a newly entitled section of the document for the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, called “Environment and health” provides a catch-all insurance for the EU that certain methods of food production – particular pesticides, endocrine disrupters or chlorine washes for poultry – will not be used in the UK. At the weekend, George Eustice, the UK environment secretary, refused to guarantee that the government would not allow the importation of chlorine-washed chicken as part of a trade deal with the US.
At the weekend, George Eustice, the new UK environment secretary, refused to guarantee that the government would not allow the importation of chlorine-washed chicken as part of a trade deal with the US. The EU’s position was backed by the National Farmers’ Union on Tuesday whose president, Minette Batters, said it would be “morally bankrupt” and “insane” of Johnson to drop the UK’s high farming and food standards in order to strike a US deal.
Eustice’s stance has caused concern in the UK where the National Farmers’ Union called for other countries to trade with Britain “on our terms”. The EU also fears that current suppliers of meat to the UK could be undercut by US imports. She raised concerns that Johnson had dismissed misgivings over US animal welfare and food standards as “hysteria” and “mumbo jumbo” in a keynote speech in Greenwich three weeks ago.
It is understood that France’s proposal to change the negotiating mandate had full backing from other member states. “To sign up to a trade deal which results in opening our ports, shelves and fridges to food which would be illegal to produce here would not only be morally bankrupt. It would be the work of the insane.”
It was agreed last Friday while other “level playing field” provisions only received unanimous support on Monday from EU ambassadors.
EU ministers will sign off on the 46-page negotiating mandate for Barnier on Tuesday before the start of talks next week.
More generally, a debate had been ongoing between the French government, which wanted to tie the UK completely to the developing EU rulebook on environmental, social and workers’ standards, and other member states who believed it would be a demand too far.
Following agreement by ambassadors, the EU will now demand the right to punish Britain if the government fails to shadow the Brussels rulebook in the future but they will not insist on “dynamic alignment” across the board.
The compromise involves Brussels retaining the right to apply tariffs or other sanctions if any divergence between the two sides over time led to “disruptions of the equal condition of competition”, with EU law being the “reference point”.
“It is about equality of outcomes,” one senior EU source said.
The leaked agreement, obtained by the Guardian, states “the envisaged agreement should uphold common high standards, and corresponding high standards over time with union standards as a reference point”.
The EU also wants to establish a “governing body” to oversee a deal that “should be empowered to modify the level playing field commitments in order to include additional areas or to lay down higher standards over time”.
France was alone in holding out for guarantees to go beyond mere “non-regression” from the current shared regulations.
The bloc will also demand that the British government apply EU state aid rules in their entirety as they evolve – the one instance where Brussels is demanding complete alignment over time. The rules limit subsidies that can be given to industry.
Barnier has admitted that such a policy is a “red rag” to the UK.
Before the meeting of EU ministers, France and Germany also warned Boris Johnson about backsliding on commitments made under the Brexit withdrawal agreement, after reports suggested ministers were looking for ways around the Irish sea border, agreed with the EU last year.
Germany’s European affairs minister, Michael Roth, said: “My message is crystal clear to our friends in London: keep your promises based on the protocol.”
Amélie de Montchalin, France’s Europe minister, said the EU had a “robust and “precise” mandate.
She said the EU would have a mechanism to sanction the UK for potential violations of EU standards. “Zero tariffs, zero quotas, it is possible if there is zero dumping, but that does not mean zero control.”
“Our position, it’s not a position of revenge, or punishment or sanction, it is a position that is economically rational,” she said. “I have heard that British companies would like continued access to European markets, they know well that means respecting sanitary and production standards.”
The Dutch foreign minister, Stef Blok, said negotiations would be complicated, given the range of interests at stake, including fisheries, trade, security and people to people contact. “I really hope that we will manage to reach an agreement with the UK before the end of the year,” he said.“The time pressure is immense, the interests are huge, it’s a very complicated treaty, so it will be very hard work.”
Andreja Metelko-Zgombić, Croatia’s state secretary for European affairs, who is chairing the meeting, said the mandate was precisely defined. “It is ambitious, wide-ranging and our negotiator will have a good framework for future negotiations. Of course it is up to the parties when they sit around the table how far they are willing to come.”
The UK is likely to publish its plans on Thursday. The government has said it will reject any deal that involves alignment on policy or Britain remaining under the jurisdiction of the European court of justice. The UK is insisting that a Canada-style trade deal, with looser provisions on ensuring a competitive level playing field, is the most appropriate option.
The EU’s position was backed by the National Farmers’ Union whose president, Minette Batters, said it would be “morally bankrupt” and “insane” of Johnson to drop the UK’s high farming and food standards in order to strike a US deal.
She raised concerns that Johnson had dismissed concerns over American animal welfare and food standards as “hysteria” and “mumbo jumbo” in a keynote speech in Greenwich three weeks ago.
“To sign up to a trade deal which results in opening our ports, shelves and fridges to food which would be illegal to produce here would not only be morally bankrupt. It would be the work of the insane”.
She said the concern was not just the chlorine or lactic acid wash that the US allowed in its food production but the use of antibiotics in countries such as Japan, Australia, China, Canada, Brazil, Malaysia and India.
“This isn’t hysteria. This isn’t mumbo jumbo. This is fact.”