Statement from the Government on the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee (corrected)

The Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee met today at Lancaster House, London. The meeting was chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Michael Gove, and the European Commission Vice President, Maros Sefcovic, alongside the co-chairs of the Committee, the Paymaster General, Penny Mordaunt, and Michel Barnier. Representatives from the Northern Ireland Executive and the EU 27 Member States also joined by videolink.

This meeting was an opportunity for both parties to set out their positions. Vice President Šefčovič detailed the European Union’s concerns, and requested that the UK withdraw the UK Internal Market Bill. The UK Government made clear that the legislative timetable for the Bill would continue as planned.

The UK Government reiterated its commitment to implementing the Withdrawal Agreement, including the Northern Ireland Protocol. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster updated the Committee on the significant steps already taken to implement the protocol, with investment to support Northern Ireland businesses and new IT systems. The UK Government also stressed its obligations to the citizens of Northern Ireland, its determination to uphold the constitutional status of Northern Ireland within the UK, and its responsibility to provide good governance for the whole United Kingdom. As co-guarantor, along with Ireland, of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, the Government’s commitment to that agreement remains absolute.

The Protocol makes clear that Northern Ireland is fully part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom and that there will be unfettered access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom. It is essential that, in the implementation of the Protocol, nothing undermines those fundamental principles.

Accordingly, the measures set out in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill are designed to create a ‘safety net’ that ensures ministers can always deliver on their obligations and take steps to best ensure the prosperity and protect the enormous progress the people of Northern Ireland have made in recent decades.

The UK Government underlined its determination to continue to engage in Joint Committee discussions constructively, with the aim of finding a satisfactory outcome for both sides.

Lord Frost, Chief Negotiator, said:

“We have just completed our eighth round of negotiations with the EU. We covered all issues in some detail, including the most difficult ones.

“These were useful exchanges. However, a number of challenging areas remain and the divergences on some are still significant.

“We have been consistently clear from the start of this process about the basis on which agreement is possible between us. Those fundamentals remain. We have engaged in discussions in all areas. We have consistently made proposals which provide for open and fair competition, on the basis of high standards, in a way which is appropriate to a modern free trade agreement between sovereign and autonomous equals.

“We remain committed to working hard to reach agreement by the middle of October, as the Prime Minister set out earlier this week.

“We have agreed to meet again, as planned, in Brussels next week to continue discussions.”

BACKGROUND ONLY

On trade in goods we had a constructive round of talks so far as this was possible within the constraints imposed by the EU’s unwillingness to discuss potential textual compromises. We discussed issues relating to each of the core areas of the goods elements of the potential FTA, including the UK’s regulatory regime on SPS and proposals for Product Specific Rules of Origin.

On services, investment and other FTA issues, the UK and EU had further technical discussions on a number of issues, including professional qualifications, investment, telecommunications and intellectual property (including geographical indications).

On the so-called “level playing field” talks covered subsidies, tax and dispute settlement. The UK had hoped to engage in text-based discussions in this Round on some topics and was disappointed that the EU rejected this approach. The UK is working hard to reach agreement and has engaged constructively in every Round. However the EU position cuts across UK sovereignty in a number of important areas, most notably on subsidy control.

On fisheries, we will not accept any proposals which compromise UK sovereignty over our own fishing waters, and we look for a relationship based on the EU’s existing bilateral arrangement with Norway. This week, on quota-sharing the UK looked to make progress and proposed categorising stock priorities to understand each side’s position better. There was some progress, based on UK proposals to consolidate a list of stocks that would be within the scope of the agreement, with the number of differences between the two Parties reduced to a small number of stocks. The EU gave a presentation on cooperation and objectives, where despite some convergence regarding the nature of cooperation, we remain divergent on legal form and the structure of the agreement.

We had a constructive discussion on civil nuclear cooperation. We talked through some text proposals from the UK that reflected the progress we’ve made in the negotiations so far on issues including nuclear safety. Both sides agreed that we could reach an agreement quickly when we move to text based discussions.

We had a good discussion on road haulage where the UK continued to propose arrangements that would allow hauliers to do work within our respective territories as well as between them in order to operate more efficiently. The EU accepted that the UK is not looking for single market type levels of access. We discussed the EU’s proposals on standards for road haulage operations.

We had a cooperative discussion on aviation safety and air services. We discussed ATM, aviation security and the ownership and control of airlines operating under the agreement.

On law enforcement we continued discussions on the capabilities and the EU’s preconditions (fundamental rights and data protection), notably on Mutual Legal Assistance, Prum, extradition, and criminal records exchange. Big divergences remain on human rights obligations and data aspects.

On energy, we continued our constructive discussions on possible efficient electricity trading arrangements over the interconnectors outside of the EU’s Internal Energy Market. We ran through how these could work in practice and we now need to move discussions onto how these work in the text of an agreement. The EU continued to push for a series of supporting measures, a number of which are not relevant to cross-border trade. We lastly had a useful exchange of views on how system operators and regulators will cooperate in future, in which we made clear the importance of supporting renewable investments in the North Sea.

On social security coordination we had constructive discussions on the coordination of some contributory benefits, applicable legislation and healthcare arrangements, including an EHIC type scheme. There was consensus that some progress had been made but that there are still some significant issues to resolve when we move to a discussion of legal text.

On participation in Union programmes,we had detailed discussions on financial contributions towards the programmes, the sound financial management of programmes, and suspension and termination provisions. While exchanges were detailed and constructive, further discussion is required on those areas where our approach differs. We also had discussions on possible service access agreements on EGNOS (European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service) and EU SST (Space Surveillance and Tracking), and an agreement on Peace+.

On governance, we had again had detailed discussions on the committee structures which might support any agreement, and constructive and technical exchanges on other issues such as exceptions.