Categories
Uncategorized

Getting a Hard Brexit Done -Towards a New Final Destination

With barely two weeks to go to a crunch European summit, the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has made his pitch for a revised Irish ‘backstop’ and a new Political Declaration on the future relationship between the EU and the UK. Not surprisingly given that what has been released deals solely with the backstop, the question that journalists have focused upon is whether the idea of an all-Ireland regulatory zone and customs controls away from the North-South border can get a green light from the EU and from the MPs who will need to back the deal.

Under the pressure of time, political and media attention cannot help but be consumed with the here and now. Yet what is fundamentally at stake in all of this is not just what it takes to “Get Brexit Done” but where the UK and the EU are heading in terms of their future relationship. As Jill Rutter has tweeted, what is really significant about Boris Johnson’s letter to departing European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker is that the softer form of Brexit envisaged by Theresa May – and rejected not just by her own MPs but also Opposition parties – is not what the Johnson Government wants. The shape of Brexit has altered and altered radically from a year ago.

On this blog last year, I suggested that what might be important about the planned backstop was that it was less a safety net and more of a trampoline towards a particular kind of future EU-UK relationship. Indeed, the terms of the Political Declaration implied that a future relationship would build upon a backstop that would keep the whole of the UK and not just Northern Ireland subject to EU rules including “level playing field” regulatory compliance.  Had the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration been approved, the shape of Brexit could have been relatively soft (although a change of government in the UK could, of course, have charted an alternative course). Albeit different from the approach of the European Economic Area Agreement – aka the “Norway model” – a novel and potentially far-reaching type of “association agreement” between the EU and the UK seemed to be on the cards.

The Prime Minister’s new proposal is not just for a revised backstop but for a very different type of future relationship. This had already become clear when the newly appointed Prime Minister Johnson wrote to the European Council President on 19 August. As well as making the now-familiar claim that the backstop was “undemocratic’, the Prime Minister went on that the backstop was “inconsistent with the UK’s desired final destination for a sustainable future relationship with the EU”. In express terms, the Prime Minister stated that UK regulations could in the future diverge from those of the EU; “[T]hat is the point of our exit and our ability to enable this is central to our future democracy”, he said.

In the more recent letter to Jean-Claude Juncker, the abandonment of any type of association agreement in favour of a free trade agreement is made clear and the reasoning that lies behind it is so “that the UK takes control of its own regulatory affairs and trade policy”.

What emerges is a rather interesting picture. The UK will leave the Customs Union and the Single Market and base its future relationship on a free trade agreement. This is a hard Brexit with no pre-commitment to EU regulatory standards underpinned by an agreement with the EU. Which is not to say that other forces will not push towards regulatory convergence: voluntary alignment or the pressure from market actors will have a role to play. But the free movement discipline of pre-committed regulatory alignment will be replaced by a looser free trade discipline that will open a space for regulatory divergence. The exception to this is Northern Ireland. Rather than the backstop acting as a trampoline or trap, it will be an anomaly. The Prime Minister intends that this anomaly – something which the Democratic Unionist Party had apparently sets its face against hence the May version of the backstop – will find its justification in the principle of consent and the willingness of the people of Northern Ireland to accept continuing regulatory alignment in trade in goods. Which begs the question of how consent in the rest of the UK is to be secured for potential regulatory divergence in the future.

It remains to be seen whether the Prime Minister can persuade the leaders of the EU27 to back his plan. But even if they do, can the same MPs who didn’t support Theresa May’s softer Brexit really get behind the harder Brexit that the Prime Minister is clearly pursuing?

Categories
Uncategorized

Decision Time – Why Opposition Parties Need to Agree a ‘Brexit Manifesto’

In the Introduction to my book Brexit Time, I observed that Brexit was not the United Kingdom’s ‘manifest destiny’. Rather it was a choice. And it remains a choice.

We have now reached the point where decisive choices can and need to be made. The options are clear. Under the Johnson Government, the option of No Deal Brexit is actively being pursued. For the opposition parties the options are either for the UK to remain in the European Union or to exit on terms that will see the UK maintain a close alignment and cooperation with the EU.

These are not new options. What is new is that there is now a clear path towards finally making a decision.

The first step is to force the Conservative Government to seek a mandate for a No Deal Brexit through a General Election. That means preventing the Prime Minister from either proroguing Parliament or choosing the date of a General Election beyond the 31 October deadline after which the UK would automatically crash out of the EU.

Before a General Election can take place, MPs will have to pass a motion of no confidence in Boris Johnson’s Government AND form a unity government. Although there has been speculation and controversy over who might lead that unity government, what is more important is what steps it puts in place for a General Election that would allow the electorate to either back a Conservative No Deal Brexit, or pave the way for the other two options – Remain or a softer Brexit – to be tested.

In order for there to be General Election before the UK automatically leaves the EU on 31 October, a further extension to the Article 50 process might well be needed. Nonetheless, for yet another extension to be granted – the third such extension – the EU will want to know that a General Election is likely to produce more rather than less certainty. That means that opposition parties need to agree not just a unity government to take control over the process, but a unity position on the substantive alternatives to a No Deal Brexit.

This is why I think the opposition parties need to come up with a common ‘Brexit manifesto’ to contest a General Election. This would not, of course, replace the party manifestos; after all, a General Election would be about more than just Brexit. But when it comes to outlining the party positions on Brexit, the opposition parties need to agree a common platform.

The difficulty for the opposition parties is the split between those for whom the only viable option is for the UK to remain an EU Member State and those for whom a Brexit alternative based on a Withdrawal Agreement, transition and close future relationship with the EU is a credible option.

The Liberal Democrats might want to maintain the clarity of their current pro-Remain position which has seen them make advances in the polls. The problem with that is two fold. For the Lib Dems a simple Revoke-Remain strategy is not going to attract them the votes of Conservatives for whom Brexit is still their preference but not a No Deal Brexit. Unless they are prepared to accept a compromise position – and with it being highly unlikely that traditional Conservative voters would switch instead to a Corbyn-led Labour Party – those Conservative Leave voters may feel they have no alternative to backing a No Deal Conservative Party under Boris Johnson. For the Labour Party, MPs in Leave-voting constituencies are unlikely to get behind a Brexit manifesto that simply gives voters a choice between a No Deal Brexit or a Revoke-Remain alternative.

My proposal is that the opposition parties unite around offering voters a second step in the form of a referendum with a straight choice between Remain and a Brexit that would keep the UK in the Single Market and a partner with the EU on other forms of cooperation including security. The option of a No Deal Brexit would not need to be put in a referendum because the preceding General Election would either have seen that option accepted – with a Johnson government having a fresh mandate – or it would have been rejected.

This approach allows the key choices to be made. If Boris Johnson wins a General Election he will have a mandate to pursue his preferred form of Brexit. If he loses and either one of the opposition parties has a majority or some type of coalition is formed, the new government would be committed to giving voters a final choice between staying in the EU or leaving the EU but under different terms. Voters would know that this alternative to a No Deal would be on offer regardless of which opposition party they voted for.

It is clear that Labour is backing a strategy of a General Election followed by a referendum. It is imperative that this becomes a shared strategy of the opposition parties.

For this strategy to be viable there does need to be greater clarity and agreement about what a credible alternative Leave option might look like. My own view is that an EEA model is a credible alternative in securing continuing access to the Single Market. It would eliminate customs duties between the UK and the EU and maintain regulatory alignment not just at the point of departure but over time. There are understandable grounds for reticence about the EEA Agreement given that it is almost thirty years old. It would be helpful if the incoming European Commission could signal its willingness to review the operation of the EEA Agreement and how it might be adjusted in light of developments in the last three decades and as the EU reflects on its own future institutional architecture and relations with its near neighbours.

The challenge for the opposition parties would be to approve a Withdrawal Agreement that they have otherwise opposed. The basis for a change of position would be a very different vision of the future for the UK as a whole and a credible alternative to the backstop underpinned by the principle of consent.

Under the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK would enter into a transition period ending on 31 December 2020 or later if it is extended. It is conceivable that an EEA-type future relationship could be ready to commence on 1 January 2021 or a year or two later if a deeper review of the EEA approach was to be undertaken.

During the transition period, Northern Ireland would be in the same position as the rest of the UK with EU customs and Single Market rules applicable during the transition period. Thereafter, an EEA-style agreement would avoid the need for frontier regulatory controls on the island of Ireland but as the EEA Agreement does not create a Customs Union a different approach would need to be considered to secure the avoidance of a hard border. To that end, the UK and the EU should commit to negotiating an agreement to replace the ‘backstop’ under the Withdrawal Agreement to keep Northern Ireland within EU customs arrangements (in addition to its participation in the Single Market through an EEA-style agreement). This new agreement should be the subject of a referendum in Northern Ireland, thereby ensuring that the Good Friday Agreement principle of consent would apply to any difference in approach between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. To avoid the Withdrawal Agreement backstop provisions being triggered, this new agreement and a referendum to approve it would need to be in place during the transition period.

All of which will require strong signals from the EU as to its willingness not just to pursue this alternative Brexit but also to implement the steps necessary to ensure that a transition will be successful. This will entail revisiting and revising the text of the Political Declaration to reflect different Brexit priorities. My own view as expressed in an earlier outline proposal is that an ‘Implementation Protocol’ to be added to the Withdrawal Agreement would give confidence as to the commitment of the EU and the UK to move from the status quo to a new set of arrangements.

It is only by offering a credible alternative Brexit that a future referendum choice between Remain and Leave can legitimately respect the interests of voters. Leave voters will have the opportunity in a General Election to vote for No Deal if that’s what they want and again to vote for a different type of Brexit – or indeed to Remain – if Boris Johnson is unable to form a government after an election. Remain voters will know that whatever opposition parties they vote for, the option of remaining in the EU will be put to them in a future referendum alongside a compromise Brexit which they might not want but which would be preferable to a No Deal Brexit.

A General Election is the legitimate way to approve or reject a No Deal Brexit. And if it is rejected, it is only right that voters can choose between remaining in the EU or leaving with a credible alternative Brexit.

Finally, choices can be made that will be both decisive and legitimate.

 

Categories
Uncategorized

Now is not the time for a ‘least worst’ Brexit – it’s time for a referendum on Brexit itself

There are 340 days to go until the UK leaves the EU.

The time remaining for the UK and EU to negotiate a withdrawal agreement is even less than that.

Domestic legislation still needs to be passed to retain EU law in national law. Time will also be needed to give domestic legal effect to any withdrawal agreement.

Time is short even to do what the UK Government wants to do, namely to leave the EU, its Single Market and Customs Union, and instead negotiate with the EU a new relationship based on a free trade agreement.

And yet we still seem to be talking about alternative options. Indeed, the term “least worst Brexit” seems to be gaining some currency as politicians and others wake up to the reality of what the UK intends to give up from its EU membership as well as all the difficulties and limitations associated with what the UK Government aspires to achieve.

A prime example of these attempts to temper the effects of Brexit is the idea of remaining in a customs union. The focal point for this debate is Parliament, with both the Lords and the Commons seeking to steer the Government towards a customs union.

For the Commons, a debate will be held on Thursday on a motionthat calls on the Government ‘to include as an objective in negotiations on the future relationship between the UK and the EU the establishment of an effective customs union’ between the UK and the EU. It will be a debate with no immediate legal consequences and the reference to a ‘future relationship’ may look beyond the immediacy of current negotiations. The Lords, however, have gone further in amending the European Union (Withdrawal) Billto make the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 conditional on Ministers laying before both Houses of Parliament a statement concerning the steps taken in negotiations under Article 50(2) to negotiate an arrangement to continue participating in a customs union with the EU.

In response to these moves, the UK Government has today repeated its position that the UK will be leaving the customs union. So what should we make of attempts by Parliament to push for a least worst Brexit?

The first thing to be clear about is that the UK Government is not negotiating in Brussels according to a mandate that Parliament has set for the UK Government in advance of negotiations. Our constitutional set up is instead one in which Parliament’s role is to legislate to implement international agreements and, in more recent times, to signal its approval of such agreements prior to ratification so as not to lead to the circumstance in which a Government is confronted with a Parliament unwilling to legislate for a deal that it does not like. We are now 15 months on from the Lancaster House speech in which the UK Government set out what sort of Brexit it wanted. We are also more than a year into the negotiations that will lead to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU with likely less than half a year left to finalise the deal. This hardly seems the moment for Parliament to decide it wants to instruct the UK Government on what it should be negotiating.

Secondly, Parliament cannot simply legislate for a customs union. The UK is leaving the EU and any future relationship can only be negotiated between the UK Government and the EU. The Lords amendment to the Withdrawal Bill does recognise that in the sense that it only demands that Parliament is informed about those negotiations. As such it is also an amendment whose condition is easily satisfied. After all, ministers may simply state to Parliament that ministers have taken no steps to negotiate a customs union as it is not government policy to have one with the EU.

Given that the Government is clear about what it wants, the only real option for Parliament is to bring the Government down one way or another. And if this Government is gone, are we really talking about forging a least worst Brexit or something else all together?

Because if there is a strong enough political momentum to reject the Government’s Brexit strategy and to argue instead for a customs union and likely also the Single Market, then perhaps there is political momentum to push for retention of EU membership itself.

As I argued in Brexit Timeand as I have been suggesting here, Brexit is a choice in time and of time. In the time that remains before the UK leaves the EU, I think the choice is not between the UK Government’s form of Brexit and a least worse version. It is between what the Government is seeking or the UK remaining in the EU.

So I have come to a conclusion. There should be a referendum on the question whether the UK leaves the EU on the terms that the UK Government negotiates, or the UK remains a Member State of the European Union. There is no time for a third way option and all the chatter that suggests that such an option might be viable is, to my mind, a distraction.

I fully understand those that believe another referendum could be divisive. But to be clear this would be a referendum on a different proposition. And it seems to me that people on both sides of this argument need to have the courage of their convictions. Either the Government is right to push for an end to EU membership on the terms it negotiates, or it is wrong and the status quo should prevail. As I have also argued on this blog, if there is to be another referendum, time is limited.

This is not the time for Parliament to try and find a middle ground. It is time for Parliament to allow the electorate to make a decisive choice. If Parliament wants to legislate for anything it should be to for a referendum.

Categories
Uncategorized

A Customs Union Without a Single Market : Is Corbyn’s Position Credible?

In speeches this week, the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister are setting out their visions for the UK’s future relationship with the EU. Things got underway today with Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn announcing that Labour would press for the UK to remain in the Single Market and a Customs Union with the EU through a transitional period, with the possibility of concluding a permanent Customs Union a “viable option”, provided the UK could have an “appropriate say” in future EU trade deals with non-Member States.

The political intention is to create clear water between a Labour Brexit and a Conservative Brexit. Under a Conservative Government, the UK will leave the EU, its Single Market and its Customs Union at the end of any transitional period. The Conservatives see this as vital to deliver on its promise to regain control over regulatory policy and trade policy once the UK leaves the EU. As part of its “Global Britain” strategy, the Government wants to be free to enter into free trade arrangements not just with the EU but with other non-EU states. Labour, by contrast, has decided that the pursuit of an independent trade policy is not something that makes the electorate vote one way rather than another. Instead, it is content for the UK to have tariff-free trade with the EU through a Customs Union. Crucially, and despite the insistence of some parts of the Labour Party, the Labour leader has not committed to keeping the UK in the Single Market after the end of the transitional period. This is for two reasons. Firstly, and despite contrary analysis even from Labour supporters, the Labour Leader continues to believe that EU competition and state aid rules would prevent a future Labour Government carrying out its economic programme. Secondly, and despite the warm words in his speech about EU nationals, the Labour Leader is not willing to accept free movement of people in return for free movement of goods and services.

So what might a post-Brexit Customs Union between the UK and the EU look like?

In certain respects, the Labour Party’s proposal would take the UK back to its early membership of the EEC. When the UK joined the EEC in 1973 it became part of the Customs Union which had been completed among the six founding states in July 1968. Under transitional arrangements, the UK, Ireland and Denmark adopted the EEC’s Common Customs Tariff and progressively eliminated any remaining customs duties. The Single Market as we know it now was still in its early development. While rulings of the Court of Justice were being used to remove non-tariff barriers on a case by case basis, it wasn’t until the Internal Market programme of the mid-1980s – a programme backed by the UK – that major steps were taken to advance EU harmonization efforts to converge the regulatory policies of EU Member States. But the “1992” programme was largely focused on trade in goods, with non-tariff barriers in services being slow to change. Labour mobility was also relatively low. In other words, a Customs Union without a Single Market would turn the clock back to the 1970s with the limits on cross-border market access arising not from customs but from pervasive non-tariff barriers in both goods and services markets.

Of course, the crucial difference between then and now is that the progress which has been achieved in eliminating non-tariff barriers does not automatically disappear as soon as the UK leaves the EU. Indeed, from a domestic regulatory perspective, the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill aims to domesticate all existing EU regulatory requirements as a matter of UK law. But two things are not clear from Labour’s proposals today. Firstly, how will the current system of rules be made to operate if the UK is not part of the wider European administrative and judicial landscape which makes existing Single Market rules actually work in practice? Secondly, to what extent can or will UK regulatory policy diverge under a Labour Government?

In his speech, Jeremy Corbyn referred to “staying close” to the EU and to continue to support EU agencies with regulatory tasks including the European Food Safety Authority and the European Chemicals Agency. But even the three European Free Trade Association (EFTA) states that join in the Single Market through the European Economic Area agreement have limited direct participation in the work of European agencies. Their representatives do not form part of the management boards of the agencies. The UK could hardly get a better deal on EU agencies while staying outside the Single Market than Norway which participates in the Single Market.

The Labour leader was also keen to assert that his proposals on a Customs Union would not see a hard border on the island of Ireland. However, it is regulatory alignment that is as much an issue for the border in Ireland as the elimination of tariffs. Arguably there is more reason to have a frontier control to ensure the physical security of the European market than there is to ensure the collection of tariffs on the import of goods onto the island of Ireland. Again, it is unclear why Labour is focusing on a Customs Union at the expense of the continued elimination of non-tariff barriers to trade through the Single Market.

If we step back from the specifics of Brexit and look at the wider international landscape, the vast majority of regional trade agreements that are notified to the World Trade Organization are regional Free Trade deals rather than Customs Unions. These Free Trade arrangements do the same work in eliminating tariffs in trade in goods between participating members but leave those states free to control their trade policies with non-members. As tariffs are reduced, it becomes more and more obvious that the big issues are around regulatory alignment and regulatory cooperation. Pursuit of a Customs Union on its own is simply not a strategy pursued by the world’s major trading nations.

In the end it is difficult to see how a Labour Government can credibly pursue a UK-EU Customs Union without at the same time having an arrangement with the EU on alignment of UK regulatory policy. After all, there is little point giving non-UK/EU goods the benefit of free circulation in a UK/EU market if in practice, non-tariff barriers impede their cross-border movement. Indeed, the success of the EU’s external trade policy – the free trade agreements with which a Labour Government would be aligned in a UK-EU Customs Union – is wholly predicated on the capacity of those goods to move freely in the market once they comply with common EU regulatory norms.

Today’s speech is more about trying to define a Labour Brexit that is different from a Conservative Brexit. In that respect there is a clear divide between a UK in a Customs Union and a UK that pursues a Free Trade model. But neither approach solves the border issues on the island of Ireland. And a Customs Union without barrier-free movements of goods and services is just a description of what a Labour Government under Harold Wilson inherited in 1974.  If Labour is to avoid accusations that it is trying to turn back time while lip-syncing its way through difficult discussions about the Single Market it is going to have to do more than pin its hopes on a UK-EU Customs Union.