A new body to mediate disputes over the Brexit trade deal will reportedly be called the Joint Partnership Council, it is understood.
The regulatory body will ensure the newly struck deal is properly applied and interpreted and will mediate any clashes between Britain and the EU over trade, it has been claimed.
The body will be established as a third party mediator to avoid Britain and the EU seeking help from the European Court of Justice.
There are suggestions that the council would have various subcommittees to manage different aspects of the treaty.
But other than the name and some sparse details there is little else known about the mystery body.
Boris Johnson said that ‘independent third party arbitration’ would be used if either side felt it was being ‘unfairly undercut’ by the other. The body will reportedly be called the ‘Joint Partnerships Council’
It a signal of the Prime Minister following through on a commitment of the
One of the bones of contention in the trade talks was Brussels’ fear that Britain could take advantage of leaving the bloc by lowering standards to make its firms more competitive.
The EU was also worried that the UK could give more financial help to its own firms.
As a result, it demanded a ‘level playing field’ to avoid a race to the bottom on issues such as workers’ rights and environmental regulation.
It also wanted Britain to continue to accept a slew of EU rules.
The UK said this would pose an ‘existential threat’ to its sovereignty. Britain said it would settle for No Deal rather than face being tied to EU rules after Brexit.
Under the deal announced yesterday there will be zero-tariff, zero-quota access to the EU single market – and Mr Johnson has maintained the ability to diverge from Brussels standards, with no role for the European Court of Justice.
Disputes will be settled by the independent arbitration panel, similar to the structures already in the Withdrawal Agreement and those commonly used in international trade situations.
In a Downing Street press conference this week, Mr Johnson said: ‘In the context of this giant free trade zone that we’re jointly creating the stimulus of regulatory competition will I think benefit us both.
‘And if one side believes it is somehow being unfairly undercut by the other, then subject to independent third party arbitration and provided the measures are proportionate, we can either of us decide – as sovereign equals – to protect our consumers.
Under the deal announced today there will be zero-tariff, zero-quota access to the EU single market – and Mr Johnson has maintained the ability to diverge from Brussels standards, with no role for the European Court of Justice
‘But this treaty explicitly envisages that such action should only happen infrequently and the concepts of uniformity and harmonisation are banished in favour of mutual respect and mutual recognition and free trade.’
A Downing Street spokesman added: ‘The deal is based on international law, not EU law. There is no role for the European Court of Justice and no requirements for the UK to continue following EU law or be forced to keep EU law as it currently stands…
‘This deal includes a commitment to maintaining high labour, environment and climate standards without giving the EU any say over our rules and includes unique clauses that ensure that [our commitments never restrict our law makers.
‘If the UK exercises its sovereign right to have different rules to the EU, any issues arising will be dealt with fairly by an independent arbitration process with no role for EU judges.’
They added: ‘A formal review of the arrangements can take place after four years. If the UK or EU does not believe the system is working fairly, either side will have the ability to bring the agreement on trade to an end. The UK and EU would then trade on Australian-style terms.’
The UK will leave the EU’s single market and customs union on December 31, so the rules and regulations on trading everything from car parts to camembert cheese will change.
In the end, both parties have agreed a common baseline of regulations on some issues, below which neither side will plunge.
However, the EU had also been insisting that if one side raised standards and the other did not, the latter should be penalised if failure to keep up resulted in unfair competition.
Instead the two sides have agreed an independent mechanism to resolve matters if one side diverges too far from common standards. This would ultimately make rulings on retaliatory tariffs in the event of a dispute.
The Government claims it ‘won’ five of the eight key sticking points in this part of negotiations, including EU law, the ability of the UK to set its own subsidy rates, competition and tax rules.
In a ‘scorecard’ it produced before the talks were agreed, it said:
The UK rejected the EU’s asks for an ‘equivalence’ mechanism, and instead secured a review and rebalancing clause which allows either side to initiate a formal review of the economic parts of the deal, including the level playing field provisions, and update the balance of the agreement over time.
‘Any short-term rebalancing measures are strictly limited and proportionate and subject to the approval of an independent arbitration panel.’
This was billed as a ‘win’ for the UK.
Asked at a Brussels press conference this afternoon how the EU will make sure the UK will stick to its side of the agreement, Ms Von der Leyen said: ‘We have strong measures that can be taken if one party does not play by the rules’
Asked at a Brussels press conference this afternoon how the EU will make sure the UK will stick to its side of the agreement, Ms Von der Leyen said: ‘We have strong measures that can be taken if one party does not play by the rules.
‘So starting from re-balancing mechanisms that are built-in with dispute settlement mechanisms, to review clauses and overall review for example, after four years, to see whether both sides played by the rules, that the level playing field is level indeed. And there is the commitment to follow whatever has been agreed in this deal.
‘So from the experience we have had we built in safeguards that are necessary to make sure there is a strong incentive for both sides to stick to what they have agreed to.’