Read on Twitter
I’ve not yet read the text of the new agreement between the UK and the EU, but from what has been discussed in the media, it seems for large parts to look a lot like the EEA minus free movement (which was always possible within the EEA by negotiation).
For many, the purpose of Brexit was to be able to deviate from EU standards and reduce EU bureaucracy. For others (like me) it was to be able to have direct control over those who make decisions which affect me - something largely incompatible with EU membership.
For the first set of Brexiters, there remains a problem. Just because we can now deviate, it doesn’t follow that we should (or will). The UK is massively dependent on (1) imports from the EU for basic foodstuffs and (2) exports to the EU.
The UK cannot easily and quickly pivot to buy from and sell to new markets which are much further afield than the EU parked 20 miles off Dover. Change therefore is in reality likely to be limited in scope and slow to happen. In the meantime “bureaucracy” will continue to exist.
I say this because in truth, the origins of much frustrating bureaucracy is not Brussels, but Whitehall. That is a culture which Brexit will not change - our civil service loves to “gold plate” - and as we are still aligning to EU standards, they will continue to be gold plated.
What has changed however, is our ability to influence the rules and standards we now “choose” (out of necessity) to follow. This is not, in my view, because we have left the EU, but because we have foolishly and needlessly withdrawn from the EEA.
In doing so, we have lost our legal right to be consulted on new EEA regulations (which I presume doesn’t appear in the new treaty) and our right to veto them via the EFTA/EU Joint Committee. Our ability to influence and control is now seemingly much reduced.
We can of course lobby international bodies which shape and in effect draft much of the EU aquis which becomes EEA law (the EU used to do that for us), and we can, subject to the treaty, presumably refuse to follow new regulations (and be subject to countermeasures).
But what we cannot now do, except at the 5 yr review, is be an effective partner is shaping the trading rules with the EU which will continue to dominate for many years to come. Unlike the EFTA states which can.
We have become rule takers (by treaty) with little influence.
We have become rule takers (by treaty) with little influence.
This is of course a matter of interpretation. Others will say we are free to change our trading focus and relationships - which is true. But reality dictates that won’t happen, and if it does, it will be little and slow to come on stream.
Leaving the EU (a political choice, about “who governs”) was always, economically speaking, a gamble, with the potential to range, economically, between small losses and small gains. But leaving the EEA seems certain to create almost no real benefits, for increased costs.
My view is leaving the EEA is likely to cause significant and tangible economic losses which are unlikely to be replaced quickly, if at all. The dream of building “Singapore on Thames” is dead and what we have is a UK not only out of the EU “room”, but outside the EEA building!
We are reduced to street lobbyists - powerless legally to change the rules we are forced by necessity to adopt. Yes we have “liberty”, but it’s a false economy. The homeless are technically free - but not exactly prospering.
We need a reality check. We need to understand the limitations of rhetoric and British exceptionalism. We are fixed geographically and by the reality of our physical reliance on EU trade. Whilst we can benefit from focussing on other markets, we remain “EU dependent”.
That is why for me, someone who thinks Brexit is an exercise in restoring legitimate forms of governance and political accountability, I see no benefits from leaving the EEA - which grew from the EU internal market (our idea). We should now revisit the idea of rejoining EFTA.
