Reader TTS

With the Withdrawal Agreement Bill expected to progress through Parliament relatively smoothly, the government will now be preparing its approach to the next phase of the Brexit

negotiations. Already there have been reports of disagreements within Cabinet over whether to conduct parallel trade talks with the US as a means of increasing the UK’s negotiating leverage

with the EU. Such tactics, however, are likely to do more harm than good. For one thing, reaching an agreement on the future relationship is going to require diplomatic goodwill on both

sides. There is much to be negotiated (and implemented) in a very short time, potentially as little as 11 months. The negotiations are likely to centre around: market access; rules of

origin; regulatory alignment; fishing; and governance of the agreement and its implementation. A number of stumbling blocks exist to reaching a deal, particularly on access to fishing waters

and level playing field commitments, which threaten to hinder progress. Moreover, the 11-month negotiating window will be further narrowed by two realities. First, EU Member States are not 

expected to sign off on a negotiating mandate until late February and, second, for a trade deal to be ratified in this timeframe, the Commission has asked for it to be presented to the

European Parliament by late November. While this short timeframe may have the benefit of focusing minds on the key points of contention, a spirit of cooperation will be crucial. Threatening

to align more closely with the US if the EU does not cave in to UK demands is likely to undermine that spirit of cooperation. In reality, it is a threat best left unspoken. The EU knows that

if it pushes the UK too hard, it risks alienating the UK and narrowing the prospects of a trade deal by the end of the year. In turn, such a strategy by the EU would damage UK-EU relations,

as well as fuel the idea that the EU was trying to “punish” the UK. Disaffected by the EU, the prospect of a closer partnership with the US may appear more attractive as domestic attitudes

towards the EU sour. It is in neither the UK nor the EU interests for this to happen, and it would have wider consequences for future UK-EU cooperation. However, if the UK is left feeling

aggrieved by the negotiations in the next phase, a cooling of relations between the pair seems inevitable. One upshot of this logic is that, if the UK’s former Permanent Representative to

the EU, Ivan Rogers, is correct in predicting that the UK will face a situation where the EU simply “runs the clock down towards the next cliff edge, and confronts a desperate UK Prime

Minister with a binary choice between a highly asymmetrical thin deal on the EU’s terms and No Deal towards the end of the year,” then the EU should pause and consider whether this is indeed

the best way to achieve its desired long-term UK-EU relationship. On Wednesday, von der Leyen gave a speech at her alma mater — the LSE — describing the UK and the EU as the “best of

friends and partners,” stressing both side’s common values, history and five decade-long partnership. Yet whether this sentiment can be maintained throughout the negotiations remains

difficult to judge. This is not to say that the UK should not conduct trade talks with the US and other countries as negotiations on the UK-EU future relationship progress. It is important

that during the negotiations, the UK considers its trade and strategic interests holistically. However, flaunting a potential US deal as an alternative to a trade deal with the EU would be a

diplomatic error for a country whose interests in the EU remain strong. There is a great deal of thinking to be done by both the UK and the EU about the long-term relationship they aspire

to and how best to realise this. However, with so much to do, both sides need to tread carefully when trying to boost their leverage.