Read on Twitter
It may well be the case that the UK govt tactic of talking to Member States about this, instead of the EU, has a political motive - ie avoiding the appearance of renegotiating the Brexit deal as such. But there's also an ironic legal angle. 1/ https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1362020717429219331
2/ If the issue is seen as an aspect of market access for services - which is how the *UK govt* framed it during the Brexit deal talks - then it's an EU exclusive competence. That means individual Member States can't negotiate with non-EU countries without EU authorisation.
3/ If the issue is seen as an aspect of visa policy - which is how the *EU* framed it during negotiations - then it's not an EU exclusive competence, because EU law leaves it to Member States whether to require a visa for paid activities during a short-term stay.
4/ The EU was, however, willing to negotiate a declaration that a visa would not be required for certain categories of paid activities, such as ad hoc performances by artists (assumed to include musicians). UK said that would violate its 'red line' opposition to free movement.
5/ It's not convincing to argue that short term paid activity for only certain categories of people violated this 'red line' - especially when the UK sought a similar result by other means, and wanted reciprocal rights for UK citizens going to the EU.
6/ The 'red line' argument becomes even sillier when UK seeks the same result by bilateral talks - moreover reversing its prior position that this was a services issue.
Convoluted negotiating tactics, which frustrate/complicate UK objectives for cosmetic reasons, are tiresome.
Convoluted negotiating tactics, which frustrate/complicate UK objectives for cosmetic reasons, are tiresome.
