David Frost statement following the conclusion of round 4 negotiations

David Frost, Chief Negotiator, said: 

“We have just completed our fourth full negotiating round with the EU, again by video conference. It was a little shorter than usual and more restricted in scope. We continue to discuss the full range of issues, including the most difficult ones. 

 

“Progress remains limited but our talks have been positive in tone. Negotiations will continue and we remain committed to a successful outcome. 

 

“We are now at an important moment for these talks.  We are close to reaching the limits of what we can achieve through the format of remote formal Rounds. If we are to make progress, it is clear that we must intensify and accelerate our work. We are discussing with the Commission how this can best be done.

 

“We need to conclude this negotiation in good time to enable people and businesses to have certainty about the trading terms that will follow the end of the transition period at the end of this year, and, if necessary, to allow ratification of any agreements reached. 

 

“For our part we are willing to work hard to see whether at least the outline of a balanced agreement, covering all issues, can be reached soon. Any such deal must of course accommodate the reality of the UK’s well-established position on the so-called “level playing field”, on fisheries, and the other difficult issues.”

 

STRICTLY BACKGROUND - not for quoting

 

On Trade in Goods the talks have been constructive and offered some useful technical clarifications on some aspects of our texts, without delivering substantial progress and leaving a number of key areas uncovered.  In particular:

 

On Services, there were productive technical discussions on international maritime transport services, mode 4, and the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, which further improved understanding of the two sides’ respective positions and confirmed the potential for progress. There were also exchanges on SMEs and geographical indications, where we were able to engage in constructive and detailed discussions on UK position papers that we shared before the round. On GIs specifically the UK presented proposals to build a future relationship with the EU that continues to command high regard, clarity and confidence on GIs. The UK was clear that any agreement on GIs must respect the rights of both parties to set their own rules on GIs and the future directions of their respective schemes. We also held a session on public procurement to discuss the EU’s proposals in further detail.

 

On fisheries, little progress was made and fundamental divergences remain over the status of the agreement, access to waters and new quota-sharing arrangements. The UK’s position is simple, reasonable and straightforward. We want a separate fisheries framework agreement which reflects our rights under international law and which provides for annual negotiations over access to each other’s exclusive economic zone and sharing opportunities based on the scientific principle of zonal attachment. The EU maintained its position which seeks to tie a fisheries framework agreement to the wider FTA, maintain the current access provisions it enjoys and maintain the status quo on quota sharing.

 

On OFC (the so-called “level playing field”) both sides engaged in a detailed round of talks covering governance arrangements, labour, environment and sustainable development. However, despite the professional and constructive manner in which these discussions have taken place, challenges remain. We have offered a detailed, robust legal text, and have explained it at length over four negotiating rounds. The EU’s text contains proposals that go far beyond what is appropriate for a free trade agreement, so substantive progress has once again not been possible this round.

 

On law enforcement and criminal justice we had positive discussions though without seeing any movement on the significant issues of principle that divide us. This included detailed technical talks on PNR, Europol, extradition as well as human rights. We continue to seek a balanced and reciprocal agreement in this area, that provides no role for the CJEU and respects our sovereignty as a third country – including by avoiding any control or supervision of our domestic legislation. It is in our mutual interests to keep our citizens safe. We also had a positive discussion about the ECHR and its implications for the law enforcement agreements.  The EU seemed reassured when we made clear our position.  

 

On Thematic Security, we had detailed exchanges on Security of Information, and reiterated the mutual benefit in establishing arrangements on health security. However, the EU is not at this stage willing to take up our offer for agreements on illegal migration and family reunion of unaccompanied asylum seeking children and has no plans to table its own proposals. We are ready to make alternative bilateral arrangement if the EU does not want an agreement in this area. Nonetheless, our draft legal texts remain on the table. 

 

On civil nuclear cooperation we discussed research and development, safeguards and then recapped our discussions from previous rounds. It was clear that both the UK and EU want to facilitate cooperation on research and development and recognise the benefits this can bring. Although there is consensus on many elements of the agreement, there remain some important differences for instance on the overall structure, where the UK want a stand-alone NCA, and with elements of safety and safeguards, where the EU is asking for commitments from the UK that go beyond what is normally found in an NCA.

 

On Governance, as we’ve done since the start of negotiations, we made clear that there can be no role for the CJEU in our agreements with the EU. We won’t move on that and, until it is accepted, we remain far apart. However, we did have useful detailed discussions this week on our appropriate, precedented proposals on OFC and aviation.

 

On social security coordination there was a constructive discussion which focused on pension aggregation and export. Both parties had an opportunity to clarify their respective positions. There are some areas of convergence in this area but a difference in approach and a number of areas of divergence.  The EU’s proposals would benefit a very limited group of people, calling into question the value of an agreement in this important area.

 

On energy, we had further discussions on the UK’s detailed proposals for efficient electricity & gas trading over the interconnectors. These arrangements help UK and EU businesses and consumers, enable efficient trade with the island of Ireland, and support renewable investments in the North Sea. In contrast, the EU’s approach on  energy trading seems to deliver little economic benefit to either side, has little detail on how trading would work in practice, combined with a series of supporting obligations, many of which are not relevant to cross-border trade. On climate change, the UK is a global leader with our commitment to net zero emissions and in our role as COP26 President in partnership with Italy. We continue to make the case for practical cooperation on tackling climate change, and this week we set out how a UK Emissions Trading System (ETS) will operate and restated our openness to considering a link with the EU ETS. 

 

On aviation both sides set out the detail of how governance and dispute resolution mechanisms would work under their proposals. We set out the UK’s preference for having separate agreements on air transport and aviation safety, rather than the EU’s unprecedented proposal of incorporating provisions on air services and safety into the Free Trade Agreement. There were similarities but also some important differences between the substance of the two approaches and the UK remain unconvinced by the EU’s novel approach to aviation.

 

On EU programmes, we had technical discussions on the programmes the UK is considering participation in (Horizon Europe, Euratom R&T, Copernicus and Erasmus+). We also discussed service access arrangements on EGNOS and SST. Talks have been informative and constructive but there is a lot of detail to work through here. Going forwards we will need to have further discussions on the key points of difference in our approaches, including on financial contributions to the programmes and the EU’s proposed termination and suspension provisions.  We’ve been clear that the UK is considering participation in certain Union programmes where that is in our mutual interest – but the terms must be fair and appropriate.  We also remain committed to making progress on Peace+, which we look forward to further discussing in future rounds.