There are moves afoot to try and bend Brexit toward the softer end of the dial, the result of growing public dissatisfaction with what we've got. Omnisis the pollsters say we are at 63-37% in favour of rejoining at the moment. The figure will only increase as switchers persuade their family and friends to do likewise. Plus, there is still nothing to show for seven years of division and argument and no signs of that changing anytime soon. So, I see tentative indications that the mood is swinging to more reality. The question is will it work?
Last week Simon Nixon (a remainer) at The Times (no£) said "there is no prospect of Britain rejoining the single market and customs union, let alone the EU itself, in the foreseeable future. That is not just because Labour, as well as the Tories, reject it, on the not unreasonable grounds that there is no public appetite for reopening such a divisive domestic debate."
Mmmm, I'm not so sure the appetite isn't there, but OK.
As for joining the EEA, he says (rightly) that that "would turn Britain into a mere rule-taker with far less sovereignty than it had as an EU member" - even if the EU was prepared to talk about it.
But, and here's the point:
"The reality is there is no means of avoiding the frictions that will come with a switch to new domestic arrangements that do not require a commitment to far greater alignment with EU standards. Yet there is no sign that the government, let alone the Conservative Party, is willing to contemplate the sort of mutual recognition arrangements that might unlock such deals. Quite the reverse. The government is pushing ahead with a bill to remove all EU law from the statute book by the end of 2023, condemning business to yet another year of uncertainty. Brexiteers always said that Brexit was a process, not an event. They were right. The risk is that it is a process that is only heading one way."
This is the conundrum, isn't it? How to align with EU standards without becoming a rule-taker.
Step forward the Labour party. David Lammy, shadow foreign secretary, made a speech last week to Chatham House where he said:
"We will aim to fix the Tories' bad Brexit deal to increase trade with Europe, including by:
- Fixing the Northern Ireland protocol.
- Reducing friction on food, agricultural, medical and veterinary goods.
- Strengthening mutual recognition of professional standards and qualifications to unlock trade in services.
- Unblocking participation in the Horizon scheme to unleash research and development.
- Using the 2025 TCA review to reduce barriers to trade.
- And improving links between our students and universities."
They talk of "rebuilding bilateral relationships" with key European partners from Paris to Berlin and Dublin to Warsaw. All fine-sounding stuff.
Then Andrew Marr has an article about Labour 'solving the Brexit conundrum' in The New Statesman.
When you read it, the answer is apparently to do 'sector-by-sector deals' with the EU to try and reduce friction, which I assume it would. What they are talking about is “dynamic alignment” or Britain, the world’s fifth biggest economy, becoming a rule-taker. If Labour thinks this is a solution, I for one am not convinced. It is certainly moving closer to a Norway-style deal or membership of the EEA.
"Both sides understand the parameters,” one frontbencher told Marr. “If they [the EU] say fine, but you have to have freedom of movement, they know we can’t accept that. But they are talking seriously. We have no problem with dynamic alignment.”
We are now back to January 2017.
Theresa May in her Lancaster House speech six years ago said the future relationship of the EU could take in.
"...elements of current single market arrangements in certain areas – on the export of cars and lorries for example, or the freedom to provide financial services across national borders – as it makes no sense to start again from scratch when Britain and the remaining Member States have adhered to the same rules for so many years."
One only has to read Stefan De Rynck's book to see the massive effort the UK government put in to try and secure those sector-by-sector deals only for it to be rebuffed by EU leaders as 'cherry-picking.' But, even if we assume the EU are now willing to talk seriously as the unnamed senior frontbencher claims, they will want something in return. International trade is not about helping your rivals but about securing the best arrangements for your own market.
What would the EU demand? I have no idea but you can see the problem.
De Rynck addresses the issue in his book (page 246) where he writes that such a Norway-like agreement would not "lead to a stable equilibrium" and that:
"A voiceless Great Britain having to apply new rules would have put Euroscepticism on steroids."
Labour may have no problem with dynamic alignment but I wonder how long that would last when the EU passed a regulation that we found difficult to accept? You can imagine the headlines in the press and the rows in parliament.
It would he claims, provoke Euroscepticism on steroids in Britain and I think that’s right.
And De Rynck makes another great point when he says EU member states were used to finding accommodations between parties because they all use a system of PR and they were "astonished" that our system "did not allow these MPs [who visited Barnier] to find common ground across party divides on an issue of such vital national interest."
Perhaps that's our problem. Both main parties are more concerned about making political points and having untrammelled power than about putting the interests of ordinary people first.
Anyway, I don't believe there will be much cherry-picking, and if anything the EU will once again come out with a bargain.
