Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. Our response to the pensions challenge is still locked in its infancy (Daily Telegraph)

Ed Balls has won praise for addressing Britain’s old age problem, but he must go further, says Mary Riddell. 

2. Labour’s great surrender on public spending (Times)

By accepting Osborne’s spending plans it’s clear that all the main parties will have to make dramatic cuts, writes Daniel Finkelstein. 

3. The overstated inflation danger (Financial Times)

A high rate may be a risk in the very long run – but right now the risk is that it may be too low, writes Martin Wolf.

4. To combat tax avoidance, tough talk is not enough (Guardian)

David Cameron must deliver a concrete plan of action at the G8 summit, says Margaret Hodge. It's a crucial test of his leadership.

5. Erdogan’s focus should be his own party (Financial Times)

The real action will now take place in the Turkish prime minister’s AKP, writes David Gardner.

6. NSA surveillance: The US is behaving like China (Guardian)

Both governments think they are doing what is best for the state and people, says Ai Weiwei. But, as I know, such abuse of power can ruin lives.

7. Thames Water avoiding tax is the final insult (Daily Mail)

These firms have exploited Britain’s soft-touch regulation, and the fear of successive governments of intervening to protect consumers, writes Alex Brummer. 

8. Once again, the nationalists decide independence is all about sharing (Daily Telegraph)

Picking and choosing on pensions shows the SNP's determination to pretend breaking up Britain would be pain free, says Alan Cochrane. 

9. Time for a rethink on GM crops (Independent)

The dire prophecies of Frankenstein foods have not come to pass, says an Independent editorial. 

10. Tax cutters should welcome a bit of state intervention (Times)

Social breakdown drives much of the growth in spending, writes Ruth Porter. 

Getty
Show Hide image

Sir Ivan Rogers: UK may wait until mid 2020s for an EU trade deal

The former ambassador to the EU had previously warned his colleagues about Brexit negotiatiors' "muddled thinking". 

Brits may have to wait until the mid 2020s for a free trade deal with the EU, UK's former ambassador to Brussels has warned.

Sir Ivan Rogers, who quit abruptly in January after warning of "muddled thinking", gave evidence to the Brexit select committee. 

He told MPs that his Brussels counterparts estimated a free-trade agreement might be negotiated by late 2020, and then it would take two more years to ratify it.

He said: "It may take until the mid 2020s until there is a ratified deep and fully comprehensive free-trade agreement."

The negotiations could be disrupted by the "rogue" European Parliament, he cautioned, as well as individual member states.

"Canada [the EU-Canada trade deal] not only nearly fell apart on Wallonia, it nearly fell apart on Romania and Bulgaria and visas," he said. 

Member states were calculating what the loss of the UK will mean to their budgets, he added - although many were celebrating the end of Britain's much-resented budget rebate. 

He also thought it unlikely the EU member states would agree to sectoral deals, such as one for financial services, if it meant jeopardising the unity of the EU negotiating position. 

In his resignation letter, which was leaked to the press, Rogers told his staff that "contrary to the beliefs of some, free trade does not just happen when it is not thwarted by authorities"and that he hoped they would continue "to challenge ill-founded arguments and muddled thinking".

Rogers said the comment was about "a generic argument on muddled thinking", which applied to "the system". He described how the small organisation he initially headed had been swamped by new arrivals from the newly-created Department for Exiting the EU.

The new recruits were enthusiastic, he said, but "they don't know an awful lot about the other end".

The UK needed to understand "we're up against a class act with the European Commission on negotiating", he warned. 

He said that if the UK reverted to World Trade Organisation rules - the option if it cannot agree a trade deal - it would enter a "legal void".

"No other major player trades with the EU on pure WTO terms," he said. "It's not true that the Americans do, or the Australians, or the Israelis or the Swiss."

The US has struck agreements "all the time" with the EU, he explained: "A very significant proportion of EU-US trade is actually governed by technical agreements."

Once the UK leaves the EU, it will be treated as a "third country", he added. This meant that the UK would need to get on a list to be allowed to export into the EU. Then individual firms would have to be listed, and their products scrutinised.

Rogers revealed he had debated "endlessly" with colleagues about the UK's relationship with the EU. "The core of the problem is not day one," he said. "The problem is day two, or day two thousand. What have you just captured your sovereignty and autonomy for?" Simply getting access to the single market would not mean a level playing field with EU companies, he explained.

He said: "The European Union is not a common sense agreement. It's a legal order."

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.