21st November 2022
We had another Sunday special this weekend:
The newspaper considered the story so important that it was splashed on their front page:
You may have prejudices – indeed Very Strong Opinions – about political journalists and Sunday newspapers, but the starting assumption here must be that the reporters and the editor believed this story had sufficient substance so as to warrant such prominence.
The story would not have been invented.
If you look at the report, the basis for the story is as follows:
And:
Reading this closely we can note that (a) this is set for the “next decade” rather than an immediate policy and (b) the source(s) quoted is(/are) not said to be ministerial level.
Although “ministers” are said to be “confident” about the “thaw”, the “senior government sources” in favour of this Swiss-type arrangement would appear to not to be ministers.
Had it been ministers, the newspaper would presumably have said so.
*
Many readers of this blog will also have Very Strong Opinions about a Swiss-type arrangement.
I have two initial responses.
*
The first is that this was another example of British exceptionalism and unilateralism, with the assumption that just because the United Kingdom wants something, it will get it.
Perhaps we can click our fingers and speak loudly and slowly in English as we demand this arrangement.
There seems no realisation that any agreement requires all parties to agree, and there is no indication that the European Union would want a Swiss-type relationship with the United Kingdom.
The European Union does not even want a Swiss-type relationship with the Swiss.
A Swiss-type relationship requires a number of discrete agreements to be negotiated and implemented in respect of sectors and subjects.
The European Union would be unlikely to have the patience or the inclination to deal with the United Kingdom, with the latter’s still-raw post Brexit politics and continuing governing party psychodrama, in such a fiddly manner.
*
But.
My second response was a mild cheer.
Regardless of the impracticality of the suggestion, it at least showed a glimmer of realism in Whitehall that the United Kingdom does need to re-think its relationship with the European Union internal market and for that relationship to be placed on a better footing.
And if we read carefully, this was not a demand for action tomorrow, but a proposal for the direction of travel over the next ten years.
The source is correct that “it is overwhelmingly in the businesses interests on both sides”.
*
But, but.
Today’s political news has been about the government denying this report.
Rishi Sunak denies he has any plans for a ‘Swiss-style’ post-Brexit relationship with European Union after w/e reports.
“Let me be unequivocal: under my leadership, we will not pursue any relationship with Europe that relies on alignment with EU rules”.
— Pippa Crerar (@PippaCrerar) November 21, 2022
I suspect that this denial is true too, on its own terms.
This denial is not incompatible with the actual words of the source quoted above, given Sunak and his government are unlikely to still be in power in three years’ time, let alone in ten years.
The commercial and economic pressures for a closer and more sustainable relationship will continue.
The politics, of course, are toxic – but there are at least two general elections in the next ten years.
*
The preference of this blog is, as many of you will know, for a close association between the United Kingdom and European Union, with shared institutions and agreed processes, which would allow us to participate in the internal market.
(“But that will mean we are ‘rule-takers!’ “ will comment Pavlov’s commenters, not caring that we are now very much rule-takers in our current predicament.)
And such an association is better done as a single agreement rather than many Swiss-type bilateral agreements.
The politics in the United Kingdom will need to settle down before this can happen.
But the commercial and economic case will continue to be there, getting stronger and more compelling with each economic quarter.
Piloting the United Kingdom to such a relationship, and convincing the European Union that it is sustainable to agree it with us, is the great challenge for United Kingdom statecraft over the next decade.
That, and the great challenge of even keeping the United Kingdom together in one union.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
Excellent blog.
One additional point: Whatever type of relationship the UK (soon only GB?) ends up by wanting, negotiations will be poisoned by the bad faith of the Johnson/Frost period.
How many decades before that is forgotten?
To be honest, I’m always surprised by the general tone of warmth the EU has towards the UK. I don’t understand it, given how badly we’ve “stuffed” them (and ourselves.)
While I doubt the Johnson/Frost period will be forgotten entirely, a government that is sufficiently grown up to negotiate sensibly might be all we need. (I know, but let’s hope, OK?)
I strongly suspect that the calculation in Brussels and elsewhere is that “time is on our side”.
Brexit has been highly beneficial in cooling down anti-EU loons in France, Italy and elsewhere. Perhaps also in creating one of the most active pro-EU lobbies in all of Europe in the UK.
Ultimately, the longer this goes on for, the more damage is done to the UK economy, the weaker London’s hand when renegotiations occur.
“I strongly suspect that the calculation in Brussels and elsewhere is that “time is on our side”.”
I get this impression too.
“To be honest, I’m always surprised by the general tone of warmth the EU has towards the UK.”
Why, though?
From Day One of this sorry debacle, this has been the EU’s default position – they’ve been the Grown-ups in the room throughout, because they’re not constantly “playing to the base” the way our lot has been doing from the start.
How soon before it is not UK, nor GB, but just England?
Let us not forget the result in Wales too. Cymru am Brex. :(
The insistence from the UK government on things happening because it suits the economic interests of both parties keeps surprising me. If economic interests were the main issue, Brexit would have never been contemplated. So the UK government is expecting that the EU should act in a short-term economically rational way, without other considerations, when the UK is not. Very bizarre.
A selling point is no EUCJ
A selling point of what, Michael? A Swiss-type deal would certainly include the ECJ as the final arbiter.
“The politics are toxic”
Well, yes they are in the sense that there are a group of toxic people who care more about their interpretation of nationalism than whether something is good for the people who actually live in this country.
More generally though, even in 2016 almost half the people in the UK wanted to stay in the UK. Many of the people who voted leave would have accepted a Swiss-like deal (they were, after all, told that was what they were voting for) and even more people would accept that now they realise how damaging the alternative is.
In short, closer ties with the EU are supported by most people in the UK. The arrangements we have now were only ever envisaged by a tiny clique. However much they spread the lie that what we have now is “what people actually voted for”, don’t fall into the trap of believing them.
I am not “falling into the trap” – please give more credit.
The politics are toxic – no major UK-wide party will emphasise the issue; the ERG have disproportionate influence; the government is seeking to break the law with the NI protocol; the press will attack anyone who questions the Brexit hardline; there has been no front-line discussion about the Single Market since Ellwood was shot down.
Toxic.
Although agreeing with the direction of travel this point is taking, we need to start with considering the position of the electorate in 2016.
We do not know it was half and half. Approx one third voted leave, one third remain and one third did not vote.
The devil is in the detail of the various reasons for not voting. After all, it was these that Johnson was most scared of, when he and May had made the whole process toxic and a second referendum was possible.
This background gives more hope for the future than a 52/48 starting point.
Apart from the many valid points you make, I don’t believe that the Swiss relationship with the EU does in fact exclude free movement of labour, and in fact I think that it includes it. If I am wrong then someone will no doubt point this rather important point out.
I believe you are right if what I have read in the FT and its many well-informed commenters is accurate. If I remember correctly, the Swiss did not want freedom of movement, the EU called their bluff and the Swiss folded. The process was obviously more complex but that is the gist of what occurred.
A quick Google of ‘Switzerland freedom of movement’ led me to this Swiss Government web page: https://www.sem.admin.ch/sem/en/home/themen/fza_schweiz-eu-efta.html
The idea that a Swiss-style deal would not include FOM is just more typical exceptionalist Brexiteer Cakeism, Peter.
I think by Swiss-type deal they simply meant a patchwork of many deals rather than suggesting that we precisely copy the Swiss approach. I don’t believe single market access would be available without free movement of labour.
Recent articles on the European press all make it clear that the road back has clear roadblocks that must be cleared before any discussion can be considered. It has been made obvious that the EU has the power; the supplicant UK has to play nice for many years.
As I write this I have just heard Sunak’s unequivocal quashing of any such policy on the BBC rolling news channel and he claims that we are already seeing the benefits of Brexit (he had to say that as a Brexiter) and that we are also in control of our Boarders and hence of immigration. None of this is true. There are as yet no discernible economic benefits of Brexit; we are patently not in control of our Boarders, (unless Rishi was referring as a Wykehamist to those pupils boarding at Winchester College) and immigration is at the same level as before Brexit – just not from the EU. It is the same old same old from a Tory PM.
You are right, the EU does not want the kind of complicated multi agreement Agreement it has with with the Swiss, let alone negotiate a similar one with the UK. GB wishful exceptionalism again. However, politicians lie in order to cover up a larger incontrovertible truth (call it “the politicians dilemma or paradox” – see “read my lips, no tax rises”, “we don’t foresee tax rises” followed by tax rises etc etc). Even the dogs in the street recognise that Brexit has been economically harmful to the UK (let alone the social, cultural, etc damage). Only the ultra zealots for the cause continue to deny this. And I don’t think Sunak is of that number. Labour is terrified it will lose votes in 2024 if it openly proclaims it is pro EU. Only the Libdems in England have always been unashamedly pro EU. As the old saying goes: if you are on the wrong road, it is never too late to turn back. And we do need to turn back. Any sort of compromise or modus vivendi that takes us back into the Single Market, or at least some kind of beneficial trade agreement with the largest market on our doorstep, is worth pursuing. Perhaps those optimists among us can see it as the unattributable thought among Tories connected to reality that maybe, just maybe, they took the wrong fork in the road.
“None of this is true. There are as yet no discernible economic benefits of Brexit”
David Davies – remember him? – was very recently interviewed by the Beeb, and explicitly pressed on extant Brexit benefits.
The only one he could come up with was the vaccine rollout, which we all know to be a lie.
In other (GB) news, the comedy channel of that name has just run a Twitter poll asking whether – if voting now – whether people would fer or agin’ Brexit.
55% voted to indicate that they would reject it…
https://www.thepoke.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/gbn.jpg
To which I should add: Hah!
Comedy gold…
Despite Labour being the bookies favourite with 8 quarters of recession to go, they could still manage to blow the next election. Still, the odds dictate business will be more interested in the views of the opposition on this issue, given the time scales involved.
Sadly for our economy, it’s not in the interests of the Labour party to say anything meaningful about it in public for the next 18 months or so. Softening on Europe will be easier for Labour and is probably an essential part of any credible strategy to deliver greater prosperity and thereby a second term.
One imagines teams of people trying to think of ways to present such policy options as “use of our new found Brexit freedoms” – so mild cheer of the ironic sort perhaps.
Why would the EU trust the England? Brexit was obtained by fraud, with rancor and racism. In 10:years there will be an independent Scotland and Wales as well as a united Ireland all in the EU. Given economic trends would the EU want an unstable and at best an upper middle income country?
Who will care about the nation of Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss …. And Charles?
A great bit of writing and I laughed out loud a few times.
I’ve been pleased by the talk of closer relations and Downing St said there would be no “unnecessary” financial contributions to the EU which I thought was interesting language.
It was surprising though to hear that there would no alignment with EU regulations given that the current partnership agreement already does that in quite a few critical areas.
I agree with all your assessment. I find it interesting that this story has emerged shortly after talk of a deal on the NIP. I did wonder if it might suit the government to be able to tell its supporters that the deal they have done on Northern Ireland is clearly nothing like a move to a “Swiss style arrangement”, which is all nonsense.
Meanwhile today, the unsquared peg of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is belatedly hammered into the quasi-autonomous hole of the Regulatory Policy Committee, which finds the government’s Impact Assessment decidedly “not fit for purpose” https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/retained-eu-law-revocation-reform-bill-rpc-opinion-red-rated O ye of little faith!
Good catch, Rich.
The RPC, being “advisory” in its role, will doubtless find itself ignored – even though its findings really are quite damning.
The longer we persist in having a government that is controlled by its Brexit fanatics, the longer we shall decline relative to the rest of the Western world. This is a serious problem and it will continue, one marginal decision at a time, until the government changes and listens to grown up advice. When that might be is unclear, since a Starmer government might still decide not to listen. However, edging closer to the EU is inevitable in the current global structure and changes in the US and China are likely to make it more so. In the meantime, the people who want both Brexit and continued use of fossil fuels will continue to destroy our future and that of our children.
“The longer we persist in having a government that is controlled by its Brexit fanatics, the longer we shall decline relative to the rest of the Western world.”
It is (in my judgement, anyway) of note that – in dismissing the idea of a Swiss-style deal – Sunak is quoted as saying that he “voted for Brexit, [he] believes in Brexit”.
(My emphasis.)
So we are yet again at the mercy of cultish Magical Thinking, completely at odds with the notion that his beliefs do not carry the same weight as the wealth of empirical evidence indicating that nothing good has, or will, come from Brexit.
Is that how a civilised, advanced country is supposed to be run in the 21st Century? We seem to be no further forward than the Middle Ages, when Belief was everything and the only thing.
Am I right in thinking that the EU would require us to join the Euro if we were to rejoin? But then, if we are going for a Swiss style arrangement, maybe that doesn’t apply.
I would quite like to be able to live in Switzerland, but maybe that doesn’t follow from having our own Swiss style arrangement.
It is a formal requirement for states acceding now to commit to adopting the Euro eventually, once the convergence criteria are met. But there is no deadline, and one of the criteria is ERM membership (which does not happen by accident). Croatia will be joining in January to bring the total to 20 out of 27 member states, but Sweden for example gives little hint that it might abandon the krona. Others such as Poland, Hungary and Romania may also prefer to remain outside the eurozone indefinitely. Denmark is not obliged to join.
“if we are going for a Swiss style arrangement, maybe that doesn’t apply.”
The Swiss official currency is the Swiss Franc, so no.
Plainly Sunday is a day for kite-flying.
The UK left the EU without thinking clearly about what kind of relationship we want for the future, but methinks either the journalist or the source or perhaps both do not fully understand what a “Swiss-style relationship” with the EU would entail.
Membership of EFTA, membership of the Single Market (which means following EU rules in that area to secure free movement of goods, capital, services, and people, but of course without participating in making those rules) but not membership of the EU Customs Area, hundreds of bespoke bilateral trade agreements (the simple alterative would be EEA membership, but that would also involve submission to the EFTA court), Schengen free movement, financial contributions to the EU budget, and movement in the last decade towards a framework agreement similar to the EEA (because the EU is fed up with its existing “Swiss-style” relationship with Switzerland). Is that what is being suggested?
Rather, I suspect they mean some sort of exceptional pick-and-mix arrangement of exactly the type that the EU would never entertain.
In the long term, I think the EU expects us to come to our senses and rejoin the EU, and they are prepared to wait as long as it takes. In the meantime, perhaps we should ask them what sort of relationship they would like with us, rather than expecting them to bend to meet our unrealistic hopes and expectations.
I have spent several most agreeable days on the banks of Lac Leman and have actually cycled problem free into Switzerland with nothing more than my ID card (issued FOC) together with my Bank credit card .
Is this the “Swiss-type “ of agreement being put about by the Sunday Times and “Government sources” ?
I suspect that it is not.
You are _supposed_ to have your passport with you as the ID card is only valid with the passport (at least the German ID card is). However in practice, I can walk or cycle or drive into Switzerland with nobody checking anything (driving is probably helped by having a car with a local German number plate).
If memory serves, there is no obligation to use a passport within the EU, let alone Schengen.
Although I can cross the border to France or Germany with a 99.9% chance of not having to show an id document, we all know we should have one – id cards are sufficient (even Geneva/Frankfurt/Tallinn by air).
When the UK was part of the EU, I could travel with only my id card, I would now have to have a passport (remember Brits don’t have id cards).
I believe that most commenters here, and indeed DAG himself, whilst making many perfectly valid points, are missing the bigger picture.
The wind has changed. The cat, which most supporters of this blog have had in clear view since 2016 is well and truly out of the bag.
And, if the Sunak government and Starmer’s opposition have only been willing so far to acknowledge an emerging set of whiskers and front paws, the majority of the country as proved in a whole host of recent authoritative polls (commented on passim
& not only in the Guardian & in blogs) has seen the whole mangy beast in all its dilapidation.
I believe this shift to a broad-based anti-Brexit majority has real momentum and it will become impossible for whoever is in charge not to move to ameliorate trading conditions with the EU.
We are moving beyond what the Tory-UKIP coalition & the enabling Labour opposition wants to what simply has to happen to rescue the country, which will be blatantly obvious and will be demanded by the public across the board.
“I believe that most commenters here, and indeed DAG himself, whilst making many perfectly valid points, are missing the bigger picture.
The wind has changed. The cat, which most supporters of this blog have had in clear view since 2016 is well and truly out of the bag.”
I posted this up the page not a day ago, Adrian:
https://www.thepoke.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/gbn.jpg
(Here, for context.)
So no, I don’t think we’re missing the big picture. We’re just looking at different parts of it at the moment.
The “Trade β Blog” linked by pingback above is worth a look: that is to say, I agree with the thrust of the piece, which includes the memorable line:
After explaining:
I note your preference for a single deal rather than the, I think, 200+ micro-deals the Swiss have. And there is something to be said for it. But as practical process for getting there, I think the Swiss were wise.
First, I think that fine slicing is the way that the Swiss got to an overall position that the EU then looked back at the totality, and said, “we gave the Swiss too much”. Probably each slice of the Swiss cheese looked like a good idea to the EU at the time. It has stopped now, but the Swiss keep what they got.
Second, and perhaps more important in our case, you have more chance of getting small slices past the noisy commentators in Britain without it reaching the toxicity level you correctly mention. The fact that we are talking to them all the time and agreeing little details is how the Brexit we agreed works. It’s just business as usual, and as always intended, that repeated small deals keep occurring.
Don’t forget that Swiss deals with the EU started from before the creation of the EEC – quite literally as bilateral deals with all of our big 3 neighbours were subsumed into larger scale arrangements. Don’t forget Aldo the importance of both rail and road links from D to I for everyone.
Brexit has been harmful to CH (as was predicted). Any (remote) chance of getting any kind of sweetheart deal has been destroyed – if we are nice to the Swiss, the Brits will demand the same.
Still, no one in Brussels sees the Swiss as an enemy who actively plots for the destruction of the European project.