01 April 2017

Financial Times: The single market offers the UK a way to regain balance

[...] An arrangement staying in the EEA while still leaving the EU is the only one that can achieve the prime minister’s admirable aims as set out in her letter. It will ensure that business with the EU, our largest trading partner, will not be disrupted by queues at border posts, or degrade over time as our regulations diverge from theirs. It would keep a level playing field for British companies working in the EU and for EU companies here, stimulating the investment that I am repeatedly told by overseas firms is under review.

The National Institute for Economic and Social Research believes trade deals with emerging economies and the US simply cannot make up for the depth of market access that the single market provides. Even if all the agreements the Brexiters want can be concluded in time, NIESR expects our total trade to fall by a quarter.

The prime minister is right that we should be global Britain. Some of her more zealous advisers sometimes need reminding that Europe is part of the globe too.

Two commitments were made in the days after the referendum. But now the parameters of possible negotiations are clearer, it would be wise to revisit those commitments This option is the easiest way to achieve the kind of security and intelligence co-operation so important to tackle cross-border crime and terrorism. It will be difficult to reach agreements that allow for the smooth flow of information between EU member states, unless there is some legal framework over which the European Court of Justice has oversight, giving European citizens the assurance that their data will be protected.

It may prove impossible to keep the UK together. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU. Leaving it but staying in the single market would be the right kind of compromise: one that reflects England and Wales’s narrowly expressed desire to be out of the EU but Scotland and Northern Ireland’s resounding margins to remain. Staying in the single market would deflate Ms Sturgeon’s nationalist campaign in an instant; leaving the single market and the customs union risks a hard border with the Republic of Ireland and a revival of Irish Republican extremism. Membership of the single market would also protect our constitution from accidental damage by avoiding many of the most difficult aspects of the Great Repeal Bill.

Why is a prime minister known for her caution taking so many risks: with the economy, the integrity of the country and with peace in Northern Ireland? It is because of two commitments made in the first days after the referendum: to leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and to be able to control immigration from the EU. But now the parameters of possible Brexit negotiations are clearer, it would be wise to revisit those commitments. They were made in the hope that we could maintain the three freedoms of the single market: of goods, services and capital, without the fourth, of people. Now that we know that is not the case, the balance of risk has changed.

We need to ask where the greater risk to the country lies? Maintaining current levels of immigration from the EU, with all the fiscal benefits they provide or taking a gamble with our economy and the integrity of the Union? [...]

Full article on Financial Times

© Financial Times