I had an interesting conversation last night. The premise was to suppose Theresa May was honest. I know that's hard to believe. The participants shared that problem. But go with it, because what we supposed was that Theresa May was honest enough to admit Brexit really was a mistake. We were all sure she believes that. After all, she said so before the referendum on the issue. The premise is that she has not changed her conviction. What then?
There was only one answer. We were sure that the existing negotiating stance would have to change. Instead of talking no customs union and single market - the leaving of both of which was not explicitly promised by most Leave campaigners - the discussion would simply move to what leaving the EU meant. The only issue would then be how to comply with the referendum with least harm, given what we now know about Ireland, the limited benefits of free trade elsewhere, the costs of disassociating, and so on.
At that point it was fairly obvious that there was only one direction available. If a second referendum was not possible - and I think on balance that was thought to be the case - then the one remaining option was Norway with the Customs Union. Whether others had read Simon Jenkins' piece on this in the Guardian yesterday or not I do not know: I had not, although I agree with much of it.
The plus is Ireland is solved.
And the UK continues to be the UK.
Those partaking thought this the biggest goal for now: the break up of the Union required a better planned precursor than Brexit, it was felt.
Thereafter the gains were to trade, stability, employment, and ease of return, plus freedom of movement (I admit, key to some in the discussion) and access to EU funding (again, I admit key to others).
What it was not was ‘stability at any cost' though. It was recognised that Brexit has posed questions on the future of the UK. And for the EU too, if it is wise to listen. And if it left but joined an EFTA style deal the UK might, and should, become a sharply critical friend. There was no point in carrying anything through unless change was the consequence. The idea that the UK could not achieve this if closely associated was dismissed: realpolitik would clearly suggest otherwise in that case.
The mood remained negative: this was a discussion amongst those who, in the main, regretted we ever got here. But then we wondered if this might happen. And the answer was it is likely.
The rate of UK negotiating capitulation makes yesterday's 58 all out by our cricket team look good. Jacob Rees-Mogg is rarely right. He is ob the fact that so far the EU have taken full control of the negotiation. We strongly suspected that is because UK negotiators really do not believe in their position. Only by edging towards a plausible option - one May might believe in - can they really achieve a result.
Norway plus customs union is that option.
It is the only viable alternative option to asking to rejoin.
We were under no illusion about the risk of political backlash. But that exists wherever we look now. The risk of being credible has to be taken. And this is the only option that withstands that test. And we suspected it is where our negotiations are heading.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“Jacob Rees-Mogg is rarely right.”
Jacob Rees Mogg is extremely ‘right’ I think.
“Norway plus customs union is that option.”
From what little I think I know about the Norwegian (Scandinavian model) socio-political consensus I don’t think that is remotely possible in the UK.
It would be something completely different.
Mind you it could give the economy a boost building all those fjords 🙂
Brooding on Brexit and the divisions within the Labour party, I have come to a depressing conclusion. The difference between the Conservative and Labour parties is simply one of scale. The Conservatives are prepared to trash their country, if it means they can hold on to power. The factions within Labour are prepared to trash their party, provided they can gain control of it.
I have to say only one of those is true
Labour is more complex than that
This cannot work because Norway has free movement.
So will we have free movement
That’s what happens when you don’t have a hard border with Ireland
It’s inevitable
A basic syllogism for anyone to complete:
London and Dublin are committed to maintaining the common travel area betwee Ireland and the UK
Ireland will remain a member of the EU, with free movement.
Therefore…
TB says:
“A basic syllogism for anyone to complete:”
Nice of you to pop-in Tony, but after what you encouraged Peter Mandelson do to Mo Mowlem’s work in NI in about a fortnight I’m surprised you have the neck to offer an opinion at this stage….
Or am I speaking to the wrong ‘TB’ ?
Are you, or your friends and colleagues aware of the “eureferendum.com” blog and it’s author Dr. Richard North?
He has been plugging the EFTA/EEA option (with safeguards against immigration) for several years. Albeit as a temporary measure on the way to some greater utopia.
On his blog he has outlined in great detail how the UK’s trade is governed by which EU regulations directives and institutions and what will be lost in the case of a hard Brexit.
He calls his approach Flexcit.
I ask because he maintains that HMG aided by the media are not pursuing something like his approach because it is “incompetent”.
I contend it is because there is no great support or pressure from the public – either because the public doesn’t know about the EEA or doesn’t like what it does know. Indeed the perceived public concern about “taking back control” and immigration would lead the PM to suppose that she is carrying out the “will of the people” by not proposing the EEA as a solution.
What is she to do given that enough of her party and cabinet reject EFTA/EEA to remove her from the job if they wish?
Given that , I think the PM would most likely to adopt EFTA/EEA (Norway) if there was a groundswell of public opinion for her to do so. But there is none….
I would be curious what others think.
I was not aware of the site but am aware of the idea
And as even the UK / French differences on passport printing show, we could go much further than we do within the EU
As as also could on migration
The massive question is why we have not done so
But that’s back to Tory politicians preferring gestures to action
There are many areas in which the way that the British government has implemented European directives have been done to minimise the effort needed by central government and rather neglect what would be the best for the UK. You mention the UK/French differences on passport printing.
On migration, the rules are actually very much more strict but Theresa May as Home Secretary completely ignored their potential. Most Leave voters would be astonished to know how much could have been done and how little has been done. You can read more about that here: http://outsidethebubble.net/2016/12/06/massive-negligence-by-theresa-may-when-home-secretary/.
One of the reasons there are so many foreign ships fishing in British waters is that the licences to fish were originally handed out to existing individual fishing boats when this was introduced. British boats were then pretty small but those licences could be sold. The main customer was the Spanish fishermen. We shouldn’t believe for a moment that “taking control of our own fisheries” will eliminate those Spanish fishermen because they have a legal right to fish in our waters which will not be changed by Brexit.
The way that the agricultural payment system is handled in the UK is also something designed by DEFRA, and much of the dissatisfaction with it stems from the way they have done that.
There are things that are dictated by Europe, particularly health and safety standards, but an awful lot is down to interpretation by organisations that simply wanted the bother to go away. We have been paying ever since.
David Webb says: “Albeit as a temporary measure on the way to some greater utopia.”
This pretty much encapsulates Richard North’s ‘Flexcit’. It’s simply ‘Brexit-lite’. ‘Flexcit’ isn’t a policy; it’s a strategy to achieve – in his opinion – a more ‘orderly’ Brexit. He’s a committed Eurosceptic, one-time associate of Arron Banks, Nigel Farage and UKIP, climate change denier, etc. Not to deny he’s written some interesting stuff on agriculture, defence and other topics. Just saying 😉
What puzzles me is how Brexiteers can get away with arguing that remaining in the Single Market and/or Customs Union would somehow be a betrayal of the vote. This is demonstrably untrue. If you want to claim people knew what they were voting for, you need to accept that the Government said before the referendum that, after a leave vote, we may end up staying in the Single Market, with freedom of movement being a trade off.
Before the referendum, the Government published Treasury and Cabinet Office papers describing what might happen if there was a vote to leave. Here is a link to a Cabinet Office paper that lays out the possible options and makes clear the Government would take the steps needed to protect the interests of the UK as a whole in the event of a leave vote. They made it clear that they would determine which possible model was the in the best interests of the UK, and they would look to negotiate and implement it. They expressly said that this could mean retaining freedom of movement to retain full access to the Single Market. Here are some quotes from it:
“1.1 This paper looks at the potential models for the UK’s relationship with the European
Union, if there were to be a vote to leave. It provides examples of countries that are not
members of the EU but have other arrangements with it — specifically Norway, Switzerland,
Canada and Turkey — and describes those arrangements. It also looks at a possible
relationship based only on World Trade Organisation membership.
1.2 These models offer different balances in terms of advantages, obligations and
influence. If the result of the referendum were a vote to leave, we would seek the best possible
balance of advantage for the UK. However, regardless of the preferred outcome that the UK
seeks, the precedents clearly indicate that we would need to make a number of trade-offs”
“4.4 In particular, we would need to decide if we wanted full access for UK companies to
the EU’s free-trade Single Market. If we did, we would have to accept the rules of the Single
Market. But outside the EU, we would not have a vote on those rules. And full access to the
Single Market would almost certainly require us to accept many of the costs and obligations
of EU membership, including the free movement of people and substantial contributions to
EU budgets and programmes (but without the UK rebate, which we would lose upon leaving
the EU).”
So surely, all the Government would have to do is say: we have examined the options, and we think it serves the country’s interest best to stay in the single market, and accept the trade-offs; and it could refer back to that documentation that was in the public domain before the referendum and say, we are doing exactly what we said we would do.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/alternatives-to-membership-possible-models-for-the-united-kingdom-outside-the-european-union
If only that they had the courage
I do not accept that a second referendum is not possible. It would however help greatly if the remaining 27 were to back up their assertion that they would prefer that the UK did not leave by issuing a unanimous, clear, irrevocable statement that (i) the UK can unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notice at any time before 29 March 2019 and (ii) if it does then we all go back to where we were before it started, i.e. it’s like it never happened.
PS: It won’t be a second referendum but a third. We had one in 1975 and another in 2016. It’s one-all at the moment. It’s only British to make it the best of three.
The obvious solution is to leave the single market but remain in the customs union. That respects the referendum result which was clearly heavily influenced by free movement but minimises the disruption to trade and mostly solves the Irish border problem. And it avoids the fantasy of free trade deals with a protectionist USA and mercantilist states like India and China.
How is that an obvious solution when it divides Ireland and / or the UK?
Because it only “mostly….. solves the Irish border problem. ”
Brexit is doing delightful (from my adoptive Scottish point of view) irreparable damage to the UK Unionist position. They tie themselves in knots every time they consider, or fail to consider, the Irish border question.
‘Better Together’ is a joke beyond funny and beyond parody.
Brexiteers should just come out and say that what they really wanted all along was a referendum on an independent England with devolved EVEL powers.
That wouldn’t be a ‘Second Referendum’ that would be a new, and straight, question.
I’m not sure I’d like to call the result in advance.
I think that the only certainty for Mrs May is that she cannot deliver any outcome, credible or otherwise, without the collapse of the Conservative party and a succession of leaders who cannot lead, pursuing ever-more destructive policies and policy failures, until their own ejection and replacement by someone even worse.
Nile says:
“…and replacement by someone even worse….”
You mean the Americans ? It’s looking increasingly credible as an explanation of the underlying blueprint.
If both the UK and Ireland are in the customs union there is no hard border. I think Labour have come to the correct policy and the Tories will eventually follow them.
No: not true
The single market is required as well
As Richard says it is not true.
Customs Unions are only about dropping internal tariffs, go deep into the WTO rules (not just it’s simple description as it even allows for separate outside deals as long the difference in duty % is collected internally). The Customs Union has been in the treaties since the start but borders were only dropped from the start of the internal market. The CET isn’t even set by the CU, it’s the Common Commercial Policy that does that which is another part of the Lisbon treaty. It is the treaty as a whole that gets you no borders.
Just staying in the CU just means no tariffs, with tariffs low worldwide anyway it wouldn’t make much difference just more paperwork (before the internal market we used T forms that went along with goods and were presented with the Customs entry).
Thank you
Surely the courts will force MPs to vote directly on the substantive question of Leave or Remain? “Brexit is built on sand. When we look past the rhetoric and hype about the Will of the People and examine the facts and events that led to Brexit, we see that the Article 50 process was not followed properly and that our Article 50 notification is predicated on a decision that has no basis in law. Despite what many people were led to believe, Parliament has never delegated the withdrawal decision to the people and has never made the withdrawal decision itself. With no constitutionally valid decision, the process is invalid and illegal.” – Professor A. C. Grayling, Master
In spite of what the Government claims, the Article 50 notification given on 29 March 2017 is invalid, and we are seeking to challenge its legality in the courts. If we are successful, the notification will be nullified, Brexit will be halted, and the decision to leave or remain will be back in the hands of Parliament where it belongs.”
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/a50-chall-her-e50/
I have contributed
Natasha says:
A lot of stuff that sounds sensible and I wonder where this sort of contribution was hiding in the run up to the referendum.
Don’t take that as personal criticism, Natasha. No bugger would have listened to you anyway. We were all too busy arguing the toss about a heap of emotive and emotional bullshit about sovereignty (wassat mean when it’s washed?) and blue passports and regaining control of something we can’t even put a name to. Not to mention being bamboozled by spurious numbers of pounds sterling on buses and fictitious ‘swarms ‘ of immigrants.
Have you thought about standing for parliament, Natasha ? Ludlow could do with somebody more intelligent than pond life. And It’s very attractive town and you can buy lardy cakes in the bakers shops. I liked it there.
The irony of Leavers’ claims that Brexit will somehow ‘restore sovereignty’ is that they miss the constitutional reality that in the UK parliament is the ultimate expression of sovereignty. Yet the process they’ve pursued, and so ferociously cling to as validation – an advisory referendum – in and of itself denies the very sovereignty they long to restore!
Frankly I am beggared that Brexiteers aren’t rushing to support the Article 50 Challenge, so they can ensure Brexit does go ahead with MPs voting directly for it, to satisfy the UK courts and the ECJ that indeed the art50(1) requirement that a constitutionally valid decision has been properly taken.
The referendum result must be respected. That means leaving the single market since there is no other way to restrict freedom of movement. The EU has made that abundantly clear. But there is no need to leave the customs union.
Freedom of movement was not on the ballot paper
Peter says:
“The referendum result must be respected. ”
With respect, Peter, or at least with as much respect as I can muster when presented with mindless cant.
Bollox.
That the referendum result ‘must be respected’ is opinion not fact. And I, for one, disagree. An uninformed opinion is of no value and deserving of no respect.
Agreed, but staying in the single market would not respect the result, because it would mean staying in the EU in all but name. Staying in the customs union would respect the result and limit the damage.
Utter semantic nonsense
“I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.” It is demonstrably false to claim the referendum result means we must leave the Single Market. The Government expressly said that staying in the single market may be the outcome the Government opts for in implementing Brexit.
Correct
It may have said so in some obscure document that no one read or discussed during the referendum, but it is well known that both the prime minister and the chancellor said that if we voted to leave the uk then we would be leaving the single market too.
I disagree
I think nothing of the like was said by those seeking to get us to leave
“Utter semantic nonsense”
I’m disappointed by that response Richard.
Can we debate or is this a Remainer echo chamber?
Please debate
But don’t offer unsubstantiated nonsense
Evidence your case
I would love to know what people mean by a “hard border” in Ireland.
If I arrive at an port (by ferry or plane) in the UK from the Channel Islands and pass through the invariably deserted “Nothing to Declare” lane does that count as a “hard border”? I would have thought any checkpoint at the Irish border is unlikely to be more severe than that. Requiring businesses to complete documentation in advance when shipping their goods by road doesn’t seem like a very hard border to me either.
It seems highly unlikely that there will be some sort of immigration control on the border. We don’t bother with one right now, even though there are already some people living legally in Ireland who don’t have a right to be in the UK.
Passport and customs controls are already largely an illusion. Our views of the border are tainted by our personal experiences and for most of us, who travel by public transport, it means showing a passport to travel between the UK and the EU. Incidentally if you count that as a border then the Republic of Ireland already has one with the UK because if you fly to Dublin they push you through passport control and, depending upon your place of birth on your driving license, they may well tell you that you should have brought your passport.
It is also worth remembering that if you travel to the UK from abroad using your own private transport (eg a boat) nobody asks to see your passport, although if you are arriving from outside the EU you need to file a return with HMRC.
I can’t see either the UK or EU insisting that Ireland has a well policed border for customs purposes whilst simultaneously accepting the complete lack of enforcement against the same individuals at airports.
I have heard yur argument from Brexiteers
What they have told me is we should agree to have a border with Ireland and then quietly forget about it
This, to be candiud, is naive
First, borders for people and goods are different. There is no border as such for goods with the EU. There only is for people. That is because we are not in Schengen.
Second, if we have a hard border first we go to US style migration control, and that’s a pain. However, it is a pain for national security as well as migration control reasons. You can already see this: there is a reason why there are two lanes at airpoirts.
But, much more importantly, this means massive regualtion on the control of the origin and nature of goods as well as simnply tariff and VAT control. It’s the origin and nature of goods controls that will take considerable time.
And ignore them and we have no control if the goods in our markets at all. Do you want that? Seriously? And does the EU? Definitely not. So a hard border means inspections, and a lot of admin. And that is cost that impedes well being. Again, do you want that? If so why?
And if you say let’s ignore it, do you want to undermine the rule of law, why?
I would be curious to know your answers.
If we ignore commercial shipments I think it is relatively naive to think that there is much of a border for individuals at the present time.
If I fly from the USA to the UK I walk through the “nothing to declare” line. I do that pretty frequently and in my experience there is never anybody in that section checking anything. I don’t see why a border with the Republic of Ireland should be any more onerous than that. Do you really expect somebody driving over the border to be subject to more border control than somebody flying between the USA and Belfast, or somebody flying between Belfast and Dublin?
Agreements on passport free movement of people between Republic of Ireland and the UK go back to 1923, so I don’t think membership of the EU is vital. I won’t be greatly surprised if the UK does a deal with the EU targeted at reciprocal visa free travel that doesn’t allow people to settle or work. If it does I don’t see any reason why the Common Travel Area won’t survive in broadly the same form it is currently in.
It seems to me that borders mainly apply to business, not individuals. I am sure that it is painful for business, but there is always complexity when you start to do business over borders. Is the origin of goods really that much more complicated than something like Transfer Pricing, Country-By-Country Reporting or working out taxes due in another country?
Let me offer three comments
The first is that this is a very white European male of a certain age perspective. I say that being one: we don’t tend to get much hassle at borders. I suspect your might feel differently if you were from a different ethnic background or age. I cannot share your perspective on this issue: I am concerned for those who do get problems as a result of bias, intended or otherwise.
Second, to be flippant about business is absurd. This is not complexity. It is wholly unnecessary complexity that will prejudice the UK at no net known gain.
Third, I cannot help but think you are like the economist who when asked to solve the problem of how to open a can of beans without a tin opener said ‘Let us assume we have a tin opener and open it”. Your answer comes in the same realm of naïveté.
Apologies: bout I refuse to take seriously those who will not seek to understand the issue being addressed and others who have commented obviously have the same problem.
The mistake you are making about borders is ‘Customs controls’ with a border there are goods and paperwork checks but they aren’t all to do with Customs they are for other reasons.
Take veterinary checks for example they are nothing to do with HMRC, those checks are done at border inspection posts and are before you get to do a Customs entry. There are various agencies involved in border controls not just Customs.
Starmer added: “I have not yet met anybody credible in Northern Ireland or the rest of the EU who thinks that there is a solution without us being in a customs union with the rest of the EU.”
Is this nonsense I gather so from comments above? Or is Mr Starmer referring to a different solution?
It’s a misunderstanding of what a Customs Union is.
Because it has the word ‘Customs’ they confuse what a CU is. They seem to think it’s about Customs procedures and cooperation, it isn’t it’s a narrow form of FTA that’s just about tariffs, it’s a historical thing that doesn’t really matter that much nowadays, it’s a hold over from when tariffs over 20%. The bit that matters is the internal market.