• World
    • Africa
    • Asia Pacific
    • Central & South Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America & Caribbean
    • Middle East & North Africa
    • North America
  • Coronavirus
  • Politics
    • US Election
    • US politics
    • Joe Biden
    • Brexit
    • European Union
    • India
    • Arab world
  • Economics
    • Finance
    • Eurozone
    • International Trade
  • Business
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Startups
    • Technology
  • Culture
    • Entertainment
    • Music
    • Film
    • Books
    • Travel
  • Environment
    • Climate change
    • Smart cities
    • Green Economy
  • Global Change
    • Education
    • Refugee Crisis
    • International Aid
    • Human Rights
  • International Security
    • ISIS
    • War on Terror
    • North Korea
    • Nuclear Weapons
  • Science
    • Health
  • 360 °
  • The Interview
  • In-Depth
  • Insight
  • Quick Read
  • Video
  • Podcasts
  • Interactive
  • My Voice
  • About
  • FO Store
Sections
  • World
  • Coronavirus
  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Business
  • Culture
  • Sign Up
  • Login
  • Publish

Make Sense of the world

Unique insight from 2,000+ contributors in 80+ Countries

Close

First Steps for Post-Brexit Government

By John Bruton • Jun 29, 2016
Theresa May

UK Home Office

The next British government has a lot of work to do when it comes to negotiating new trade agreements. Former Prime Minister John Bruton explains.

Now that the United Kingdom has voted to leave the European Union (EU), the first step has to be taken by the British government. It must decide what sort of relationship it wants to have, trade wise, with the rest of the world. At the moment, that is governed by agreements negotiated—for the UK—by the EU.

If Britain simply leaves the EU, all those agreements will fall apart, as does UK membership of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Agreements with dozens of non-EU countries will have to be negotiated again—at the same time as negotiating with the EU. There is clearly a lot of work to be done.

So, the British government will have to choose choice between three options: leave the EU and, like Norway, apply to join the European Economic Area (EEA); negotiate a new special trade agreement, like the one Canada or Switzerland has with the EU; or leave the EU without any trade agreement and apply, as a separate country, to join the WTO.

Option 1: Join the European Economic Area

The EEA option could be put in place quickly and would not disrupt trade all that much. The EEA is a readymade model for external association by a non-member with the EU. It could be taken down from the shelf, so to speak.

But, as an EEA member, the UK would still have to implement EU regulations and contribute to the EU budget. It would not allow curbs on EU immigration. The EEA option has been dismissed by Vote Leave campaigners, but it does involve leaving the EU and complies with the literal terms of the referendum decision.

If the UK experiences severe balance of payments problems over the summer, the EEA option may become attractive. The United Kingdom already has a big balance of payments deficit and capital inflows may be inhibited by the leave vote. The EEA option would buy time and would not preclude leaving altogether eventually.

Option: 2 The Canada and Switzerland Model

The second option, a special trade deal, would be much more difficult. It would require a detailed negotiation on every type of product or service sale between the UK and the 27 member countries of the EU, including across our border.


In some respects, British voters have just mistakenly blamed the EU for the effects of the omissions—and underperformance—of successive UK governments.


Such an agreement would take years to negotiate (probably seven or eight) because it would be subject to domestic political constraints—and political blackmail attempts—in all EU countries, each of whom would have to ratify it. If the UK proposed curbs on immigration from the union, the EU countries affected would use difficulties with other aspects of the deal as a bargaining counter.

It is unlikely that a trade agreement would allow the UK to sell financial services in the EU. Indeed, it would be in the interest of EU countries that might hope to attract financial services to make sure the UK gets few concessions.

Option 3: Leave the EU With No Agreement

The third option—leaving the EU with no agreement—could come about, either because that is what the UK might choose, or because negotiations on a special trade deal might break down or might be not ratified by one or two EU states.

It would require the application of the EU common external tariff to British or Northern Irish products crossing the border into the Republic of Ireland.

Average EU tariffs are around 4%, but on agricultural goods the mean tariff is 18%. The imposition of these tariffs is a key part of the Common Agricultural Policy, which protects the incomes of EU farmers. We would have no option but to collect them at customs posts along our border. All forms of food manufacturing and distribution within the two islands would be disrupted.

The disruption of the complex supply chain of the modern food industry would be dramatic and the knock-on effects impossible to calculate. A similar effect might be felt by the car parts industry, which is subject to tariffs and is important to some parts of England.

Embed from Getty Images

Reforming the EU

Meanwhile, the remaining 27 countries of the EU—and the EU institutions—will have a lot of thinking to do too. They need to respond decisively to the (false) claim that the EU is not democratic.

All EU legislation has to be passed by a democratically elected European Parliament and also by a Council of Ministers, who represent the democratically elected governments of the 28 EU countries. The members of the European Commission must be approved by the democratically elected European Parliament.

But there is room to further improve EU democracy.

First, the president of the European Commission should be directly elected by the people of the EU in a two-round election—at the same time as the European Parliament elections—every five years.

Second, a closer link must be established between national parliaments and the EU. A minimum of nine national parliaments agreeing should be sufficient to require the European Commission to put forward a proposal on a topic allowed by the EU treaties. National parliaments can already delay EU legislation, so they should be free to make positive proposals too.

Is the British Government to Blame?

That said, the EU should avoid overpromising and should not allow itself to be blamed for all the problems people face in their daily lives. The EU is not an all-powerful monolith that can solve the problems caused by technological change and globalization. It is just a loose voluntary confederation of 28 countries with no tax raising powers of its own. Nor is the EU responsible for debts mistakenly taken on by its members.

If the losers of globalization and technological change are to be sheltered from misfortune, it is for the remaining 27 states—not the EU itself—that have the taxing power to redistribute money from the winners from globalization to the losers.

The UK has not been particularly generous in this regard. Its welfare system is modest and its investment in productivity improvement has been poor. In some respects, British voters have just mistakenly blamed the EU for the effects of the omissions—and underperformance—of successive UK governments.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: UK Home Office


Fair Observer - World News, Politics, Economics, Business and CultureWe bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your donation is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a sponsor.

Share Story
Categories360° Analysis, Economics, Europe TagsBrexit, Britain, European Union, Trade Agreements, United Kingdom
Join our network of more than 2,000 contributors to publish your perspective, share your story and shape the global conversation. Become a Fair Observer and help us make sense of the world.

READ MORE IN THIS 360° SERIES

How a British Court Ruling Could Delay Brexit Negotiations
By KnowledgeWharton • Nov 12, 2016
Can Brexit Be Achieved With Minimal Damage?
By KnowledgeWharton • Oct 17, 2016
Brexit and Populism’s Verbal Judo
By Eliot Assoudeh • Sep 08, 2016
Pulling the UK Out of Europe is No Easy Task
By John Bruton • Sep 01, 2016
EU Challenges in Post-Brexit Period
By John Bruton • Aug 17, 2016
Brexit Brings Revolution to Britain
By Christina Dykes • Jul 20, 2016
Brexit Blues Set In After EU Referendum
By Michael Julien • Jul 19, 2016
Brexit Talks Could Run Till 2020
By John Bruton • Jul 11, 2016
From Brexit in the UK to Austerity in Spain
By Conn Hallinan • Jul 10, 2016
Brexit Party Over, Hangover Sets In
By John Feffer • Jul 01, 2016
Tell Me Again How Racism Played No Part in Brexit
By Natalie Pitimson • Jun 29, 2016
Why Brexit and the Success of Trump Should Not Surprise You
By Yasmeen Sami Alamiri & Ryan J. Suto • Jun 27, 2016
Why the British Said No to Europe
By John Pilger • Jun 27, 2016
Turkey’s EU Dream is Dead on Arrival
By Nathaniel Handy • Jun 26, 2016
Brexit and Trump Are For Baby Boomers, Not Millennials
By Vasundhara Saravade • Jun 26, 2016
The UK-EU Separation: How Fast Does it Happen?
By Nicolas Veron • Jun 25, 2016
Does the Brexit Vote Mark the End of Internationalism?
By John Feffer • Jun 23, 2016
With Brexit, London Would Lose Business as a Global Financial Center
By Nicolas Veron • Jun 23, 2016
Last Week Tonight With John Oliver: Brexit
By Fair Observer • Jun 21, 2016
Britain Should Stay in the European Union
By John Bruton • Jun 20, 2016
The Human Factor in the Politics of Fear
By Anna Pivovarchuk • Jun 19, 2016
To Brexit or Not to Brexit?
By Anna Pivovarchuk • Jun 16, 2016
What if the UK Makes a Brexit?
By Fair Observer • Jun 11, 2016
As Brexit Approaches, Europe’s Left is Divided
By Conn Hallinan • May 31, 2016
The Fuss About the UK Government’s EU Referendum Booklet
By Michael Julien • Apr 22, 2016
The Question of Sovereignty in the EU Referendum
By Michael Julien • Apr 02, 2016
Why a Brexit Could Sink the EU
By KnowledgeWharton • Mar 26, 2016
UK Security Would Benefit From Brexit
By Bruce Newsome • Mar 15, 2016
The Road to Brexit and What it Would Mean
By Douglas Webber & INSEAD Knowledge • Mar 07, 2016
UK Exit Affects All of European Union
By Maxime Larivé • Feb 24, 2016
Brexit is More Complicated Than You Think
By John Bruton • Jan 28, 2016

Post navigation

Previous PostPrevious The Cost of Escaping a Syrian Prison
Next PostNext Education Alone Cannot Eradicate Poverty
Subscribe
Register for $9.99 per month and become a member today.
Publish
Join our community of more than 2,500 contributors to publish your perspective, share your narrative and shape the global discourse.
Donate
We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your donation is tax-deductible.

Explore

  • About
  • Authors
  • FO Store
  • FAQs
  • Republish
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Contact

Regions

  • Africa
  • Asia Pacific
  • Central & South Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & Caribbean
  • Middle East & North Africa
  • North America

Topics

  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Business
  • Culture
  • Environment
  • Global Change
  • International Security
  • Science

Sections

  • 360°
  • The Interview
  • In-Depth
  • Insight
  • Quick Read
  • Video
  • Podcasts
  • Interactive
  • My Voice

Daily Dispatch


© Fair Observer All rights reserved
We Need Your Consent
We use cookies to give you the best possible experience. Learn more about how we use cookies or edit your cookie preferences. Privacy Policy. My Options I Accept
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Edit Cookie Preferences

The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.

As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media.

 
Necessary
Always Enabled

These cookies essential for the website to function.

Analytics

These cookies track our website’s performance and also help us to continuously improve the experience we provide to you.

Performance
Uncategorized

This cookie consists of the word “yes” to enable us to remember your acceptance of the site cookie notification, and prevents it from displaying to you in future.

Preferences
Save & Accept