The Tribune

THE current negotiations between the EU and Britain about their post-Brexit trading relationship is top of the news agenda in Europe. The deadline for an agreement is the end of the year – barely two weeks away. But, although, after months of talks, the two sides remain divided on several key issues, EU watchers are accustomed to such events going down to the wire before agreement is suddenly reached at the eleventh hour. So, many still hope for a satisfactory conclusion.

The nature of such a trade agreement – affecting a European Union of more than 400 million consumers and Britain as the world’s fifth largest economy – will have far-reaching effects across the globe so it is of major interest. After Britain formally left the EU on January 31 this year, a deal has to be struck before the transition period runs out on December 31, with the UK government flatly ruling out any more negotiations after January 1 if the current talks fail.

It is, of course, desirable for Britain to have a bilateral trade agreement with one of its most important trading partners – and vice versa. The alternative is a “No Deal” and to trade under World Trade Organisation terms which will result in imposition of tariffs and perhaps quotas and, in the short term, may produce border delays, higher prices of food and other commodities as well as shortages. Businesses could be badly affected and it is feared this could lead to economic dislocation, disruption and chaos, bearing in mind the UK and EU have been so closely integrated for more than 40 years through Britain’s membership of the bloc and its geographical proximity to Europe.

A new, post-Brexit trading relationship ought to be wide ranging and include not only commerce, business and banking but also issues like fishing rights, adjudication of disputes, air travel, freight and road haulage links, supply chains and a host of others. Last February, the EU offered a Norway-style agreement tied to the single market or a looser Canada-style deal. The UK opted for the latter, even though it was possible that it could end up with an Australian-style WTO model and no deal at all.

After rejecting continued membership of the single market and customs union, it decided it was preferable to have a comprehensive free trade agreement similar to Canada’s whereby goods exported to the EU should meet its trading standards. But, like Canada, there would be no need to follow the bloc’s single market rules that include, of course, the free movement of goods, people, services and capital.

Some regard it as an encouraging sign that at the weekend, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson agreed – after what was described as a constructive and useful telephone call – to extend the talks in Brussels beyond last Sunday; and this was after earlier announcing that that would be the day of reckoning because of the time needed to obtain parliamentary approval of a deal.

At the time of writing, this remains the position. They both say that, even though a No Deal is a strong possibility and that there are substantial and important differences to be bridged, they are willing to “go the extra mile” in order to try to reach agreement. So, as the talks continue, this week will be crucial.

Apart from “governance” of any deal and Britain being asked to accept policing and enforcement through the EU’s own courts and without provision for arbitration, there are two main sticking points that are considered to be intertwined; namely, fishing and the so-called level playing field to ensure fair competition.

On fishing, President Macron of France appears to be leading the EU demands that European trawlers must be able to maintain a high level of access to British waters at the end of the transition period, such as some already enjoy under the Common Fisheries Policy. But the UK insists that, as an independent coastal state, it must have total control over its own sovereign waters – and there is reportedly a strong feeling in Britain that no prime minister could be expected to concede on this even though a quota system for EU fishing fleets might be negotiated.

As regards a level playing field, the EU insists that in order to ensure fair competition the UK must agree to a common set of rules and standards to prevent its businesses from enjoying an advantage. But that would mean being tied to future Brussels regulations and facing penalties if the UK did not match them. Reportedly, Mr Johnson has accepted the principle of “non-regressive” standards – not watering down the level of existing regulations - for example, in areas such as state aid and subsidies, taxation, workers’ rights, health and the environment. But he has said the UK cannot be tied to possible new EU laws in the future under the threat of retaliation and with no right to impose the UK’s own tariffs in response. He has made it clear that as an independent nation Britain must retain control over its own laws and regulations and, therefore, cannot agree to being locked in for ever to what is termed the EU’s regulatory orbit.

It cannot accept a requirement to follow the bloc’s rules should it bring in new ones and then threaten to impose tariffs and other punitive measures if the UK fails to comply.

The conclusion of all this seems to be the EU has still not come to terms with the reality that Britain has left the bloc and should be treated now like any other third country seeking a trade deal. Some say such a view verges on the disingenuous, given the particular circumstances of existing economic integration in a modern world where countries have to collaborate and perhaps even pool sovereignty for the greater well-being and prosperity of its citizens. But it is hard to imagine any other world top ten economy would be asked as a trading partner to adopt EU rules and regulations in this manner and give up control of its own waters to EU member states.

Britain wants a clean break as a newly independent country. As one observer put it vividly: “I voted for Brexit because I wanted the people in charge of my own country to be democratically accountable to me and everyone else in Britain and I do not want other people to have a say in how we do our business.”

That is more than a shade simplistic, perhaps, but I believe the mood of “Euroscepticism” in the country should not be underestimated. The plain fact is the EU dare not make Britain’s departure too easy lest any of its other member states may be tempted to follow suit and quit the bloc.

For better or worse, the nation has embarked on a new path that now seems impossible to stop.

The beginning of the end?

As has been said, in the wintry gloom shines the light of real hope. Can the end of the pandemic be in sight? After so many long and hard months of crisis, when countless numbers of people have shown remarkable resilience and stoicism amid much pain and suffering, many now believe the development of vaccines can indeed now lead to such an ending.

Purely by chance, I discovered recently famous American novelist John Steinbeck’s powerful description of reaction to adversity and suffering when he wrote about “the paralysed dullness with which the mind protects itself against too much sorrow and too - a story of human misery and the need for compassion by human beings towards one another.

From now on, however, the hope must be that this should no longer apply. How pleasant it is to draw attention to Britain becoming the world’s first country to give emergency approval to an effective and safe coronavirus vaccine – in the shape of the Pfizer/BioNTech one produced in the US. Development of any vaccines in such a short time – mainly in the US and UK but also in Europe - is an amazing achievement in itself.

Now, nearly a year after the virus first appeared in China, rollout of a nationwide immunisation programme, which is the largest ever such effort in Britain’s history, is likewise extraordinarily impressive. Mass vaccination will take months to complete but what a beginning this has been. The start date of December 8 is already being called V-Day which is a nice addition to the nation’s traditional nomenclature, including the widely familiar D-Day and VE-Day.

Interestingly, the first recipient of a vaccination shot – more popularly known in the UK as a jab – was a 90-year-old grandmother, Margaret Keenan, who expressed her delight to be the first person in Britain to have had one. Apparently, the UK government has ordered 40 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine together with seven million of Moderna’s product while the British-made AstraZeneca/Oxford University vaccine will be approved soon. Compared with the Pfizer product, reportedly the AstraZeneca vaccine can be stored at less low temperatures and in smaller amounts suitable for doctors’ surgeries and care homes. Meanwhile, as has been widely publicised, the Pfizer vaccine has now been approved for emergency use in the US which has started its own inoculation programme.

While there is a certain national pride in reporting Britain’s lead in relation to such an important issue as use of a COVID-19 vaccine, the virus is, of course, a global problem. Many are expressing concern that much of the world is still grappling with the pandemic - with, overall, more than 70 million people infected and some 1.6 million deaths, according to the most recent data. Moreover, there is currently a worrying increase of infection levels in the UK and a record number of more than 3,000 daily COVID-related deaths in the US, let alone what is happening in other countries.

So, while some claim – surely erroneously - that the more affluent nations have secured all the vaccine doses in advance and have blocked their availability for poorer countries, it is encouraging to learn the World Health Organisation is working to help to accelerate development and distribution of more COVID-19 vaccines, and to guarantee fair and effective distribution around the world. Such action, whatever form it takes, must surely make sense for it is in the interests of us all to rid the world of this nasty disease and its widespread terrible effects.

For he’s a jolly good fellow

In recent months in this column, I have written about retired British army officer and bemedalled Second World War veteran, Captain Thomas Moore, who, at the height of the coronavirus pandemic earlier this year, raised millions of pounds for the National Health Service by walking laps of his large garden 100 times to mark his impending 100th birthday.

For voluntarily completing this gruelling task at his advanced age in order to raise money for such a worthy cause, he was regarded as an inspiration – and, as his exertion caught the imagination of the British public, he rapidly became a national treasure.

His efforts earned him a knighthood and a promotion to honorary colonel. He was knighted in July by The Queen at a unique, open-air personal investiture ceremony in the grounds of Windsor Castle – and, as I mentioned at the time, that was indeed a happy day to gladden the heart.

The whole saga of Sir Tom, as he is now known, has become legendary. So, it has been interesting to learn of another twist to this wonderful story. Last week, British Airways arranged a free flight to Barbados for him and some family members. To the delight of those who recognise people’s achievements in their advanced years, he has revealed the support he has been shown over the last months has given him “renewed energy” as a centenarian – and, as he said in his usual humorous manner about his unexpected trip to Barbados, “I now get to tick something off my bucket list”.