Institutional negligence

Gove today has emphasised that the EU has never insisted on level playing field provisions with other territories such as Canada. But it has. The whole point of new generation EU FTAs is to establish a level playing field. You wouldn't give out preferences on tariffs without ensuring goods and services are not undercutting you by taking shortcuts on the environment, labour rights and state aid. It's all detailed in CETA chapters 7, 21-24, which Tories haven't read.

If you've been arguing for a "Canada style deal" then you've been arguing for a new generation comprehensive EU FTA, built from standard clauses underpinning multilateral agreements and global standards, which is pretty much what the EU negotiating mandate is. The Tories are just looking for excuses to walk away and since our media has swallowed wholesale the narrative that CETA doesn't have LPF provisions, they could very well get away with it.

There are, though, subtle differences. For instance:

CETA also reaffirms that Canada and the EU will continue to cooperate in competition law enforcement. Inter-agency coordination has emerged in the last 20 or so years as a fundamental element of international competition law enforcement. CETA recognizes this by providing that Canada and the EU will continue to operate in accordance with the 1999 EU/Canada Competition Cooperation Agreement. This agreement requires each party to notify the other party in respect of enforcement activities, including merger control and cartel investigations, that may affect important interests of the other party. The 1999 agreement also includes a framework for consultations between the parties, mutual assistance between competition authorities and provisions for information exchange. It also allows a party to request that the other party investigates a particular instance of anti-competitive conduct where it adversely affects important interests of the requesting party. The approach taken to competition policy in CETA is similar to that contained in the 2009 EU-South Korea free trade agreement and may provide a model for future international trade agreements.

CETA builds on previous agreements between the EU and Canada (still in force) which taken as a whole is comprehensive. There are no prior UK-EU agreements due to membership so it follows that a UK-EU FTA must go further than the standard EU FTA to match the effect of CETA. The Tories are pretending they "just want a Canada style deal" implying that CETA is minimalist when even a cursory inspection shows that it isn't. The EU negotiating mandate aims at the CETA landing ground, but recognises it must go further to have the same effect. Essentially, "All we want is a trade deal" is an empty mantra. Modern FTAs are trade governance treaties and LPF goes with the territory. You either want one or you don't.

A possible point of contention is the extent to which LPF measures are subject to dispute resolution. In the case of CETA, some aspects are except whereas the EU negotiating mandate implies greater use of dispute settlement. I expect that is yet to be hammered out, though with dispute resolution mainly being a joint committee, with only exceptional cases referring to the ECJ for clarification, there is no real reason for histrionics. What we're seeing here is a knee-jerk aversion to any ECJ involvement. But then this is why hardliners should have backed Efta. The ECJ was always going to be the final arbiter in any other framework.

In any case, the UK is reliant on the EU for vital food imports while having shared regional concerns, not least common seas and a land border, so even if both sides agreed on what a "Canada style deal" means, a basic FTA (insofar as they are basic) is never going to be sufficient. There has to be a higher level of regulatory cooperation than for other countries on the other side of the planet. The lesson here being that if you want total regulatory independence, don't live directly next door to the number one global regulatory superpower.

As to the specifics of state aid, it's a most peculiar hill for the Tories to die on. Traditionally the Tories have disapproved of such socialist interventions, but with their case for Brexit being so lamentably weak, they have stolen the lingo of Lexit as a post-facto justification. In turning away from a new generation EU FTA they are turning their backs on the very internationalism they championed being that provisions for subsidies build upon the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Does it occur to Tories that level playing field provisions are also binding on the EU and consequently in the national interest? Similarly, if we are diverging from the global standards as adopted by new generation FTAs, then we are self-isolating. 

But that then brings us to the core issue here. We are dealing with Tory ideologues who don't have so much as a basic grasp of what a modern FTA is, and don't really care enough to find out. Neither Johnson or the Tory party ever cared sovereignty, rather they see Brexit as a window of opportunity to carry out an ill-advised radical economic experiment - which is why they are looking to virtually any excuse to sabotage a viable conclusion to these negotiations. A comprehensive FTA is an impediment to their agenda.

Instead the Tories appear to be aiming for an "Australian style agreement" (something that doesn't actually exist) as a fallback position. The Australian relationship is comprised of multiple agreements, there is no "Australian style agreement", and if these talks fall through then Gove is in no position to guarantee any agreement, Australian or otherwise.

The sad part here is that there are now rich pickings for an opposition party that was on top of its game. Instead of exploiting the opportunities, though, all we'll get is some generic blether from Long-Bailey and Starmer over worker's rights to make it look like they've been paying attention. With the EU and the UK having published their trade negotiating positions, we can now expect Labour to deliver a landmark policy paper on promoting trans rights on the Gaza strip. There is no opposition to speak of.

Taken in the round we have a dangerously cynical and dishonest government, an ineffectual and irrelevant opposition, and a lazy and indifferent media, while their respective tribes go to extraordinary lengths to excuse them. These are not the makings of a functioning democracy. This is institutional negligence on a massive scale. When politics collapses like this, the economy can't be far behind.