This week in Brexitland, November 23rd, 2022
The Tories hokey cokey on a “Swiss style” new dawn for Brexit, and an exploration of what “real Brexit” might mean, if anything
One of the contradictions in Brexiter thinking - there are many as you know, but this example is particularly significant - is that while they complain about Remainers not “accepting the result”, quickly followed by us “moving on”, they also insist that Brexit isn’t finished and there is much more to accomplish in order to render it complete. Whether that’s to do with the Northern Ireland Protocol or “taking advantage of the opportunities Brexit has to offer”, somehow “Real Brexit” has yet to dawn. How can Remainers accept something they didn’t agree with if they don’t even know what its final state will look like given the architects of the project don’t seem to know either?
This vaguely explained, unfinished state of Brexit came into the spotlight this week with a leak to the Times which explained that the Sunak government was considering trying to establish a “Swiss style” relationship with the EU, superseding the awful state of affairs inherited from the Johnson government. Before we go any further, it might do everyone some good if I take a moment and explain Switzerland’s relationship with the European Union.
First off, looking at the “Swiss style” arrangements with the EU and wanting to emulate them makes some amount of sense for post-Brexit Britain. The Brexiters, prior to the 2016 referendum, used to think so as well. Like Great Britain, most of the reasons the Swiss don’t want to be EU members are emotional and quasi-spiritual in nature. They considered joining in 1992, but a referendum was held and staying out narrowly won. This all starts to sound familiar from a British perspective.
After the 1992 referendum on EU membership, ongoing negotiations were then held between Switzerland and the EU for how the two entities would deal with one another with the Swiss not joining as a member. The negotiations were extremely long - they started formal negotiations in 1994, leading to an agreement signed in 1999, and another one in 2004. This is why it is sometimes described as taking a decade for the Swiss to reach their current arrangements with the EU - because it actually took ten years to get there. And the Swiss and the EU are still negotiating their relationship with each other, to this day.
The interconnection between the EU and Switzerland is incredibly complicated and I’m not even going to try to summarise it here as it would take thousands of words to do it any justice. For the purposes of this article, I will simply summarise some points I think are key to understanding the UK government flirting with the idea of being more like the Swiss in terms of our relationship with the EU, why it backed away and further, why only ignorance of the matter could have ever meant they were serious about it:
The Swiss were happy to accept Freedom of Movement of people and in fact, joined the Schengen Area in 2009.
The bilateral treaties contain a lot of acceptance of EU standards and regulations by the Swiss. In fact, Switzerland, while not technically being in the single market, has agreed a series of free trade arrangements so detailed with the EU, it basically places them inside the single market with a series of opt outs.
They are not part of the customs union at all and can set their own tariffs. This means they have trade deals with third countries not negotiated by or in tandem with the EU.
The Swiss pay into the EU budget an agreed sum.
To summarise, the key elements that Britain would have to consider if it wanted a “Swiss style” arrangement with the EU are: reintroduction of freedom of movement, the acceptance of at least some EU standards and regulations and paying into the EU budget again, albeit at a much lower level than it did as a member. This was obviously never going to happen, not with this government. Those are all red lines they were never going to cross. So why the hell did they ever brief out that they were considering the idea?
I think some of the more sane Tory MPs must realise that something that is vaguely Swiss-shaped is the only immediate answer to solving at least some of the problems Brexit has caused. Britain needs better access to the single market, it’s as simple as that. Which means that we’ll have to renegotiate with the EU for a better deal than the lousy one we’ve got now at some point in the future. And if we want a better deal, we will have to agree at the very least to taking some regulation from the EU (which almost certainly means ECJ oversight) and paying in some money. There’s no way round this. Particularly when you ask yourself why the EU would agree to open up negotiations on a deal that is not even two years old yet when the UK have acted belligerently since.
But this is all academic anyhow as there is a large contingent within the Conservative parliamentary party that will never allow for any movement towards the EU on anything at all. Several of them have publicly stated that to do so would be a betrayal of “Real Brexit”. Now, “Real Brexit” is entirely defined by what it is not as opposed to what it is. One tenet is there can be no alignment with the EU on anything whatsoever, as a matter of general principle. Alignment with other countries - Australia, New Zealand, the entire Pacific Rim - that’s all well and good. That somehow isn’t a betrayal of this old-fashioned view of sovereignty they cling to. But agreeing to some basic things with the EU in order to make trade easier, even when mutually beneficial, no, that’s not “Real Brexit”.
Spoilers: there is no such thing as “Real Brexit”. Or rather, there would be a “Real Brexit” if only human beings and the world were wildly different than they actually are, and as a result, everyone had acted the way the Brexiters had predicted and hoped back in 2016. If the EU had fallen apart shortly after the referendum, with France and Germany fighting with each other, both of them in competition to get a better deal with a newly independent UK, that’s a start. If only Ireland had decided within weeks of June 23, 2016 to leave the EU and sign a pre-emptive trade deal with Great Britain, even better. Again, if only the world was different than how it actually is in reality, then maybe “Real Brexit” could exist.
But we live in reality as it is, not as the Brexiters wish it could be. And while part of me feels sorry for them all, they just have to accept that facts don’t care about their feelings.
Thanks for reading. If you haven’t subscribed, please do, and I’ll be back next week with the worst of Brexit.
"If the EU had fallen apart shortly after the referendum, with France and Germany fighting with each other"
I remember this prediction, and it showed the level of ignorance about the EU within the UK, which sadly seems to be common both sides. The EU began as the European Coal and Steel Association back in the 50's in order to make war impossible between member states and end the madness of the last centuries, where each side waited for a new generation of men to grow to fighting age, then went off to attack one of their neighbours. France and Germany were at the forefront of this and even German reunification was only agreed to by the French on condition the countries shared a currency. The EU isn't going to collapse because it has worked as a peace project; the Brexit leaders making these predictions have clearly not learned the lessons of history, nor have they understood history itself.
I understand where you are coming from, Nick, but there is a much bigger struggle with reality than most think. Are the good folk of Great Britain going to stand by as they enter the basket case region that Argentina inhabit or confront the problem solving of the unicorn herders in the Uplands?
A choice must be made surely!