The original “Reset” was in 2009, an avaricious Russia fresh from annexing a portion of its neighbour Georgia was too big to ignore. In response Hillary Clinton decided on a “Reset” and infamously met Sergei Lavrov presenting him with a red “reset” button. Russia pocketed this concession and five years later annexed Crimea. Clinton paid the Russiangeld but the Russian bear’s appetite remained insatiable.
Britain’s relationship with the EU is not quite as fraught as that of Clinton’s with Russia. While Russia’s threat was direct and military, the EU’s and its members would be hard pushed to mobilise a brigade of tanks. But it would be a mistake to see the EU as a benign force that can be entreated with. Its weapons are legal and political but its aims are no less avaricious, Britain’s fish, energy, legal autonomy and even its territory are being eyed up to acquisition. They have learnt over the years how to bend Britain to its will and are good at it. From the Brexit negotiations until now their negotiators and lawyers have out-smarted the FCDO’s officials, they have used the UK media and a naïve, needy and uninformed British political class to do their work for them. In the army you are taught that the best way to capture a bridge is from both ends at once: in negotiations it’s the same, the EU learnt it was best to control both sides of the negotiation and did so to devastating effect with Olly Robbins and Barnier.
So the EU “Reset” is bound to fail, it is designed to fail. There will be no “reset” where the EU comes to see the UK as a sovereign equal and one it should treat as an ally. No, the EU is conditioned to see the UK as a vassal to be manipulated and a resource to be preyed upon. The “reset” will go the way of Hillary Clinton’s: they will come back for more, they always do.
The reset’s premise was wrong from the beginning. A Labour Government that feels the need to placate and apologise to the EU. It has no clear aims beyond “being closer” to the EU. It wishes to have a good “relationship”, to “reset”. Probably to “rejoin”, but it cannot say that yet. Its ambitions are limited and unformed, as with Olly Robbins (now again in the FCDO) they have gone to the EU and asked what they — the EU — want — and back came a list.
So, what has the EU suggested as suitable topics for the “reset”? The EU of course sees things very differently, decades of catching UK fish, setting UK laws and spending UK money has conditioned how it sees the UK. These are its negotiating “asks”.
- Fish The current fishing deal extracted by Barnier expires in 2026. This will leave EU fishermen with only their own waters to pillage. It is therefore a key aim of the EU to extract a deal that extends the status quo.
- EU food and drink exports The UK is the EU’s largest food export market and a valuable one. The UK pays high prices for food, which is necessary as EU exports are high cost. A key economic aim for the EU is to secure preferential access to the UK, so removing any UK border controls and ensuring only food made to EU standards is allowed into its key UK market. To do this the EU will need to force the UK to accept EU food regulations on all its domestic production and do so in a way that if the EU changes its laws, the UK laws automatically change as well. “Dynamic alignment” or “vassalage” in old money. The ECJ, and EU commission officials overseeing our farmers and food industry.
- Youth mobility The EU wishes to maintain access to the UK for its workers and students. The English language and universities are a draw and the EU would like the UK to accept and subsidise EU students, giving them preferential fee rates and work.
- EU climate change costs The EU has its own “Emission Trading System” and is in the process of setting up its “CBAM” the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism to penalise imports from carbon intensive industries. In doing so the EU will disrupt global trade and add costs to both their domestic industries and imports. The EU aims to draw the UK into their CBAM and ETS and so export their costs to the UK. In doing so they would gain control over UK trade and preserve their privileged access to the UK market for their globally uncompetitive industries.
- Defence alignment The EU wishes to push the UK into its various defence legal structures, the EDF, CSDP, PESCO etc. In reality the UK as a large defence partner has no need for any agreement with the EU beyond NATO, cooperation will be a necessity but the EU would wish to bind the UK in and influence UK policy, priorities and spending.
Labour should never have requested a “reset” but that is not to say there are not things that could not be improved, just that Britain’s demands should be different from the things in the list above. So, here are a list of potential UK “asks” that a UK Government could seek to negotiate with the EU. They are limited as we already have a “Free Trade Agreement” and many issues are already settled and going further runs into issues of sovereignty and regulation for diminishing economic returns. But here are some potential worthwhile aims for the UK to pursue:
- Illegal immigration France has it in its power to prevent small boats departing its shores for the UK. There has been a merry dance of UK payments followed by theatrical non actions as the boats keep coming. Rather than use immigration as a tool to pressurise the UK, as the Russians are want, this should end in any serious negotiation with the EU.
- Mutual recognition of food standards While the EU seeks UK vassalage it remains the case that both the UK and EU have high food standards that make most checks on (the very limited) UK food exports unnecessary. Two normal states could agree mutual recognition of standards based on the end product — i.e. safe food. Indeed, the EU has such agreements with New Zealand, but has so far refused to do so with the UK.
- Allow the certification of UK conformity assessment centres The EU allows assessment centres in states such as Korea, Japan and New Zealand to certify goods as fit for the EU market. This has a practical benefit for their exporters. It is however something the EU has refused to allow the UK to do, indeed they are still briefing it’s a red line for them in the current talks.
- Touring musicians The EU talks a big game about cultural interactions but has so far refused to lift paperwork on touring UK musicians, who have to have their coaches and instruments checked at customs and apply for multiple visas. This is a minor issue that creates a lot of noise, but should have been solvable.
- Rules of Origin Under the TCA, goods pass tariff free if they are made in the UK. However few goods are 100 per cent made with UK content and some include components from states the EU has other agreements with. Allowing these components the benefit of the FTA would be a minor liberalisation granted to other EU trade partners that would be of some benefit to the UK. Alas the EU has so far said no.
- Defence Fund Cooperation The UK has a large defence sector and is integrated into the EU’s defence sector and indeed cooperates and purchases equipment internationally. The EU defence fund is open to a range of non EU states but the EU pointedly said no to the UK.
- Passports It is a perennial complaint of the North London intelligentsia that they have to go through the non-EU passport queue in EU states, fill in travel details and have their stay limited to 90 days. This is a small issue but one that could no doubt be negotiated.
- The scrapping of the Northern Ireland Protocol There’s much more that could be said on this, but its removal must remain a key UK demand in any talks.
This is a non-exhaustive list and are individually small but real issues that have the potential for a negotiated solution. However, the UK has asked for these before and been roundly told they are not on offer.
So we have a strange “negotiation”, one where the UK is the supplicant requesting a “reset” but has very few real “asks” and those it has it has been rebuffed on before. On the other hand the EU has some major economic and political interests it has to defend. From acquiring UK fishing resources and energy, a destination for EU food exports to defence and the economics of the CBAM, the UK is a resource they can not give up. The “reset” is a great opportunity to bed these in.
The reset has been very badly conceived by a UK Government that has little awareness of the interests it is negotiating. Naïve and ignorant of its counter-party’s motives, Britain will undoubtedly get taken to the cleaners. We will then see the spectacle of a British prime minister trying to explain why handing over fish, subsidising EU students, and guaranteeing EU preference to its food exports via acceptance of their laws and officials is a “win” for Britain. No doubt he will try to explain that gaining access to EU defence meetings is a victory, but the UK/EU relationship never failed for lack of meetings.
What we need as a country is a wholly new approach to the EU and actually identify our interests. For instance, it should be clear that we are a food importer not an exporter. Remember all those ships in WWII? We import, we have an interest in trading with a range of high-quality agricultural exporters. We export very little and have no capacity to produce much more (an issue of geography and population growth) and certainly not enough to justify accepting EU laws over our whole domestic economy.
We have our defence interests and these are often shared with the EU, but are not identical to the EU. We should cooperate but not be aligned with their interests. We have partners around the world and value NATO.
We have our own trading interests and should not make them subservient to a climate policy written by our neighbours. We have already seen the issues of CBAM carbon tariffs raised by India and the USA, if we forge ahead with the CBAM we will be the ones upending world trade to our own disadvantage. Deindustrialisation and higher costs locked in by the EU is not a UK negotiation win.
Sadly, it is too late to exit the talks, they are already set for Lancaster House on 19 May — the traditional FCDO venue for ceding British sovereignty. We can perhaps hope that the EU is too greedy that even our Government feels accepting all its asks for nothing in return would be an embarrassment. But on past performance, embarrassment seems unlikely. So, we should settle for a clear determination to reverse this agreement when the time comes. Any current attempt to tie the UK into permanent servitude should be loudly protested.
The original Russian Reset of 2009 was dead by 2014 when Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea. This EU reset will hopefully last no longer than 2029, and this time it should not be the UK conceding yet more territory, resources and sovereignty.
