Paul Wallace, a former European economics editor of The Economist, has an op-ed on Reuters website HERE, urging the EU to "cut Brexit Britain a break" by "moving at least some of the way towards the Chequers plan". I assume Mr Wallace is a Brexiteer having written a book entitled: The Euro Experiment. However, some of the stuff in his piece seems to misunderstand the whole Brexit argument.
"The deal that May is seeking is quite similar to that of Switzerland, which is essentially in the single market for goods but not services. Though her convoluted proposal for a customs union in all but name is unworkable, the EU could nonetheless offer the real thing".
He does not seem to appreciate that Mrs May isn't asking for a Swiss style deal or indeed anything like it. Switzerland has over 100 bilateral deals with the EU negotiated over more than 20 years. It certainly isn't in the single market for goods as anyone who crosses the EU Swiss border regularly will know.
As for offering the UK "the real thing" for a customs union as opposed to her convoluted FCA plan, this is just a non starter as far as Theresa May is concerned. We would be unable to negotiate new trade deals with the rest of the world. The EU could "offer" a customs union but May's Conservative Brexiteers would never accept it.
Also, he displays a complete lack of understanding of the EU's position. They are not entirely free to offer the UK whatever it wants in any case.
Switzerland is in the Schengen area and has to accept freedom of movement. For the UK to agree to this would put us in a worse position than we are now. We do carry out border checks at the moment. May's party would never accept completely open borders and neither would many leave voters. If the EU then concede a deal like Switzerland but with the UK outside Shengen, the Swiss would instantly demand the same treatment. They have been trying to get better control of immigration for years but the EU have always resisted.
We can see in Barnier's stairway to Brexit (HERE) that we can easily have a Swiss style deal, it's the third step down. But it requires freedom of movement and a substantial financial contribution, two things we are adamantly opposed to. Note also we also originally demanded regulatory autonomy but our red line has been turned pink by our latest "common rule book" idea but it isn't clear quite how this would work in practice. Many in her party are opposed to any kind or regulatory alignment anyway.
And as we can see from the Alternatives to Membership, published by the British government before the referendum (HERE) on page 26:
".... unlike Norway, Switzerland had no right to access the Single Market. As a result, Switzerland adopted a different approach. Over the last two decades, it has painstakingly negotiated over 100 individual agreements with the EU, covering market access in different sectors. Switzerland has only partial access to the Single Market. It has most access to trade in goods. The bilateral agreements include various provisions to reduce practical barriers to cross-border trade. However, agriculture is not comprehensively covered by these agreements, so some agricultural products remain subject to tariffs".
If we get increased single market access the Swiss will demand the same. If agriculture is covered, the Swiss will demand the same. And so on. If Switzerland get concessions, Norway may demand more. These complicated arrangements are not easy to renegotiate in isolation. Rights and obligations have to be carefully balanced.
To top it all, it is widely thought the EU do not want another complicated multi-agreement relationship like Switzerland and prefer a comprehensive all-embracing single deal anyway.
Switzerland isn't bound by EU law but in practice it implements most EU regulations and directives. If it refuses to do so the EU can limit its access to the single market. And breaking any one single agreement would result in all 100 ending abruptly with catastrophic consequences for the Swiss economy. It is a sword of Damocles hanging over Switzerland and it would be the same for the UK.
I am afraid Mr Wallace's suggestion has more holes that a Swiss cheese.
