BY ZACH ELSBURY –
The current state of British politics needs little introduction. A polity, once seen by foreign correspondents as dull, uneventful, and stable is now the complete constantly evolving, febrile, and flirting with total collapse. European integration has always been a vexed question in the UK. Thrice the UK applied to join the then-EEC, first in 1964 under Prime Miister Harold MacMillan, then in 1967 under PM Harold Wilson. Both rejected by French President Charles de Gaulle. Only on the third attempt, after de Gaulle was replaced by George Pompidou, did the UK sign the Treaty of Rome and join the EEC. This, however, is not the beginning of the UK’s uneasy marriage with Europe. Like every marriage, there was a prelude.
A common criticism levelled at the UK is that it was late to the party. The UK was never one of ‘The Six’ founding nations central to the institution. This lateness is often attributed to aloofness and lack of interest to matters European. This is a misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the UK’s attitude to integration. The UK was engaged from the beginning. They were both involved in the Intergovernmental Conference established by the Messina Conference in 1955 and attempting to undermine the negotiations that lead to the European Coal and Steel Community. After withdrawing from the Intergovernmental Committee that lead to the Treaty of Rome in November 1955, the UK presented an alternative vision for European cooperation: Plan G.
Plan G was an attempt by the British to compromise between the two positions it faced at the end of 1955 – isolation or participation, by creating a regional free trade area that excluded agricultural products. It intended to complement the customs union formed by The Six: France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands, and Luxembourg, by creating a multilateral system involving the other members of the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC). However, inter alia, due to French rejection of the plan in 1958, the plan failed and morphed into the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).
The UK’s hesitance to joining the EEC was not from point-blank obstinance, but from a different vision of what post-War European cooperation should look like. The UK favoured multilateral trade liberalisation, as is seen in EFTA. Whereas The Six, now 27, favoured political integration and harmonisation within a customs union. The UK’s historical ties to the Commonwealth and the former system of Imperial Preference, joining The Six in a Customs Union would not have been in the UK’s interests. Nor would it have been in the interests of The Six, especially France, who had reservations about liberalising access to their agricultural markets.
As talks between the Government and Labour Party resume in the shadow of last week’s local elections, both sides should look back to find the way forward.
Compromise is by no means as simple as it sounds. It is more complex than trying to comprehend the EU’s ordinary legislative procedure. It’s not just because the wants of the Prime Minister and Commons differ, but because the Commons is disunited. Its only discernible opinion is that it is vehemently opposed to no-deal. The Commons has no alternative. The situation is best understood as a dinner party. The Prime Minister has prepared a traditional roast dinner and nearly burnt the house down in doing so. Her guests don’t want a roast dinner and offer no alternatives; however, they are united in rejecting the table that it is served on. Further, in order for the cross-party talks to be successful, both leaders need to be prepared to compromise. Doing so risks splitting both parties down the middle. If the Prime Minister were to shift towards Labour’s position of a permanent customs union, she risks splitting the Conservatives. It is doubted than such a compromise may even have a Commons majority. If Mr Corbyn were to shift towards the Governments of opposing a second referendum, he risks splitting his fragile coalition of a party in two by alienating pro-EU MPs like Sir Keir Starmer.
While the Commons cannot and is not united behind a single alternative, there are discernible trends that the Government can exploit to get a deal over the line. Chief of those is the need to minimise economic disruption. This is, wrongly in my opinion, ‘solved’ by remaining in the Customs Union permanently. While it removes the need for customs and tariff checks, it does not resolve the need for regulatory checks. It would be like applying a sticking plaster to an amputated leg. As well as this, it would prevent the UK from capitalising on leaving the EU to its fullest extent. Leaving the EU is an unprecedented opportunity for the UK to rediscover its global vocation and reengage with the rest of the world. Remaining in the Customs Union would now allow the UK to capitalise on regaining an independent trade policy. In a geopolitical climate where the liberal rules-based international order is under strain from multiple angles, it would be a strategic mistake to undermine the UKs ability to advocate a liberal approach to trade in the medium- to long-term. Secondly, remaining in the Customs Union does not constitute leaving the EU in any meaningful way. What I often lost in the debate is the centrality of the Customs Union to the integration process. The two grand theories of European integration, neofunctionalist ‘spill-over’ and European inter-governmentalism, are predicated on the Customs Union. That is, integration in ‘x’ justifies further integration in ‘y’ and ‘z’ with the rate determined by the Commission or member-states respectively. Leaving the Customs Union should be a priority for Leavers, moderate Remainers, and waverers alike.
The Sunday Times revealed that the Prime Minister intends to offer the Labour Party a comprehensive, but temporary customs agreement to break the deadlock. It would entail dynamic alignment on Single Market regulations for goods, mirroring EU workers’ rights and a customs arrangement until 2022. This is a welcome and pragmatic development from the Prime Minister. While permanent Customs Union membership is wholly unacceptable for reasons already mentioned, a temporary customs arrangement is the opposite. Trade policy is more than tariffs and rules of origin. Maintaining a temporary common external tariff in conjunction with dynamic regulatory alignment mitigates the issues raised by the Irish border in the short-term while allowing for alternative arrangements to be developed. While an awkward and uncomfortable position, it’s not a disaster, much like a peak-hour train to work or uni – uncomfortable, but it gets the job done. It maintains frictionless trade between the UK and EU27 – especially Ireland.
Post-ratification, whomever succeeds the Prime Minister must reassess Theresa May’s red lines. This is vital to create a stable and sustainable majority and Brexit settlement moving forward. The Prime Ministers focus on migration has soured relations with our European friends and allies at home and on the Continent. Liberally-minded MPs and voters, many of whom have a profound sense of European identity, are repulsed by her obsession with freedom of movement. Freedom of movement is beneficial to the UK and Europe. It offers many opportunities that have enriched and shaped many. This is especially so for the young people, who voted disproportionally to remain. I do not for a moment believe that the majority of young people who voted remain did so out of federalist zeal. Their Brexit stance is shaped by their more European sense of self and the benefits of membership. Freedom of movement and Erasmus are chief amongst those. This is something the Prime Minister urgently needs to take into account for a long-lasting and sustainable Brexit settlement.
In order to secure a sustainable settlement, the next Prime Minister must radically rethink what Brexit entails and pivot towards EFTA membership. Not ‘Norway Plus’, just straight ‘Norway’. As a constitutional conservative, I say this with a heavy heart. There is nothing more inviolable than the sovereignty of the Crown-in-Parliament. However, EFTA offers greater constitutional safeguards than the Prime Ministers deal and remaining within the EU. EFTA can be unilaterally exited, whereas the so-called ‘back-stop’ cannot. EFTA Parliaments have a veto over regulation. EFTA plays no part in the political sphere of the EU, which many are all too keen to ignore. EFTA plays no part in the disastrous Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies. EFTA is not a part of the Customs Union.
Pivoting to the EFTA offers political advantages as well. While the hard-line ERG Refuseniks may quiver at the idea of joining EFTA, the majority would not. Nor would the majority of Leave voters. EFTA delivers Brexit. It is out of the political institutions of the EU. There would be no more ‘ever closer Union’. We will never be a part of a European super-state. We will be able to sign free trade deals with friends and allies across the globe, from CANZUK (Canada-Australia-New Zealand-UK trade agreement) to China, from India to the United States. It ensures economic continuity and provides a base to deal with the intra-Ireland boarder while addressing fears of divergence between Ulster and the UK. There will be no regulatory checks between the Republic, Ulster, or the rest of the UK. Importantly, it creates consensus. It reaches out to the majority of those who voted Remain for economic reasons. It reaches out to the many factions of the Conservative Party by being a vast improvement on the Prime Ministers deal and being a compromise between all of their respective positions. It reaches out to moderate Labour, Lib Dem, and SNP MPs, whose priority is maintaining economic cooperation between the UK and Europe. It reaches out to business, who are screaming for certainty. It will decouple Sterling from politics and re-attach it to economic performance. Crucially, it reaches out to young people. It avails their fears about lost opportunity and maintains the links to Europe that they hold dear. It kills the toxic message spread by some, most recently by Polly Toynbee in her disgusting Guardian piece, that pits young and old against each other. It will be sustainable now and into the future.
A pivot to EFTA delivers Brexit in a classically British manner – through level-headed compromise. Broadly speaking, everyone gets what they want, from leaving the EU to maintaining economic cooperation to economic certainty. It reaches out to all corners of debate, from Leavers, to Remainers, to the young and delivers on the historic referendum result without sinking UK plc or EU inc. I can only hope the Prime Minister is able to stomach dropping her illiberal red line against freedom of movement and make the right decision.
