Theresa May says Brexit will reduce UK access to single market
Subscribe to read
As the UK enters the most crucial stage of the Brexit negotiations the issues are getting even more challenging and intractable. One could be forgiven for saying that as one door closes another slams in your face. The government not only has to negotiate its preferred relationship between the UK and the EU, where the choices available are all rather grisly. The prime minister also has the additional burden of keeping her cabinet united. That she managed to get unanimous agreement in December for an increased budget offer was a reminder that Theresa May is both tough and resilient. I voted for Britain to remain in the EU and continue to believe that, on balance, Brexit does not best serve the national interest. But a different conclusion was reached by a majority of the British public and the evidence suggests that another referendum would produce the same result. Like many, my initial strong preference was that, if we are out of the EU, we should at least remain within the single market.
After all, the removal of trade barriers was one of the greatest successes of British diplomacy. As Margaret Thatcher’s Europe minister from 1983 to 1986 I saw her enthusiasm for free trade at a time when the French and others still harboured protectionist prejudices. Norway and Switzerland enjoy privileged participation in the single market Mrs Thatcher helped create. I hoped the UK could do the same. Sadly, I have concluded that this is not going to be possible for fundamental democratic reasons. It is not because we would have to pay for the privilege of access, as do the Norwegians and Swiss. That would be entirely reasonable. Nor is it because we would have to accept the continued jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. I am sure we could negotiate some joint jurisdiction for the ECJ and our own British courts that would be acceptable to supporters of Brexit. The fundamental problem would be the insistence of the EU that we would have to incorporate into our domestic law all future regulations and directives, although we would play no role in the drafting of these new laws. Both Norway and Switzerland accept that requirement. As smaller countries, they have concluded that in an EU of 28 countries they would have had little real power to influence the content of these laws even as members. For Britain, such a requirement would be both humiliating and indefensible. As one of the three largest economies in the EU we, along with Germany and France, have the predominant influence on the content of all new laws. In future we will have little or none. It would be particularly unacceptable to the City of London that we would be unable to influence, much less veto, the content of new laws that might seriously damage their interests. It would be particularly unacceptable to the City of London that we would be unable to influence, much less veto, the content of new laws that might seriously damage their interests This requirement creates an impenetrable barrier to remaining in the single market. Would France or Germany ever accept such an obligation? The answer is obvious. I am not so concerned about the need to accept new laws on the single market in a transition period out of the EU. That will only last for two years and, once it is concluded, we can repeal those we do not consider acceptable. However, a permanent requirement to accept into our law obligations that had never been accepted by our parliament or government would make references to Britain becoming a “vassal state” very persuasive. The arguments against remaining in the customs union are more complex. It would make it considerably more difficult, if not impossible, for us to enter into new trade agreements with the US or other third countries. The question, however, is whether that might be a price worth paying in the interests of British industry, for a temporary period after we leave the EU. At least one thing is clear. The future is not what it used to be.
The UK is very much part of Europe.