Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

The UK does have an entrenched objection to identity cards.

Nevertheless, despite the lack of identity cards, they have moved a good deal towards a more continental-style system of immigration control. Back when Schengen was first conceived, the UK reasoned that, as an island nation with limited entry and exit points, they had a system in which migration was controlled at the border and, once in the country, there was little or no check on anyone's migration status. Thus they were uneasy about the removal of border controls.

But, since then, they have started to shift the emphasis of migration control away from the border, and introduce processes by which you may need to demonstrate your migration status to, e.g., take up employment, enroll your child in school, lease a flat, etc. They still don't have policemen asking to see your papers in the street, but they do have a range of in-country controls and they increasingly rely on these to enforce migration law. In true Tory fashion, they have effectively privatised the function by imposing it on employers, local authorities, schools, etc. It's already the case that EU citizens can enter and leave the UK with minimal formality and, while they do have to produce a passport at the border (unless they enter from Ireland) there is no check at all on whether they intend to take up employment in the UK, stay longer than they should or do other things that, as EU visitors, they are not entitled to do. They rely on in-country checks to police that.

All of this would make it somewhat easier for them to join Schengen if they had to. The less you actually rely on border controls to enforce your migration laws, the easier it is to give up border controls.

EFTA as an organisation has few relations with the EU.

Joining EFTA will not in itself give membership of the EFTA pillar of EEA. Membership of the EEA will have to be approved by the EU Council by consensus (unanimity). The 27 votes just will not be there.

There are no back doors into the SM. There just might be a possibility for and application for a 100% full EU membership could succeed.

Lars 😀

PS! The UK will not rejoin. It will have to join by the full A49 process.

I think we're in broad agreement. It comes down to this.

It is possible to participate in the Single Market without being an EU member state.

The principal route for doing this is joining the European Economic Area.

The EEA is regulated by an agreement, the "EEA Agreement". Under the EEA Agreement:

• A state which becomes a member of the EU must join the EEA; and
• A state which joins EFTA may apply to join the EEA

So, if the UK did wish to join the Single Market, joining EFTA would be the obvious step. But that wouldn't automatically result in Single Market participation; it just qualifies them to apply.

The question would then arise as to whether they should be admitted. As already noted, participation in Schengen is not a formal requirement either to join EFTA or to join the EEA, but all the states which have taken this route are in Schengen, and if the UK wanted to follow this route I think a reluctance to join Schengen would, um, not assist their application.

There is a theoretical alternative route to participating in the Single Market. Switzerland is not a party to the EEA Agreement, but it does participate in the Single Market via a serious of sectoral agreements with the EU. So the UK could approach the EU and seek to negotiate a Swiss-type series of sectoral agreements.

The main obstacle to this is that, in the light of experience, the EU doesn't think that the Swiss model is a particularly good one, and doesn't want to replicate it with other countries. They could change that policy for the benefit of the UK, but why would they?

The second obstacle is that, though not an EEA member, Switzerland is an EFTA member and is in Schengen. So the precedent to which the UK would be appealing is, again, one shaped by EFTA and Schengen.

The bottom line here is that the EU gets on just fine without the UK and is in no mad rush for the UK to seek readmission. But we would like a less spiky relationship with the largest non-member economy in Europe and, from that point of view, any moves by the UK towards EFTA, the EEA or the Single Market would be welcomed — but not if they threatened the same kind of disruption and tension that gave rise to Brexit in the first place. So, if the UK does seek a closer institutional relationship of one kind or another, the EU's attitude will be broadly positive, but will demonstrate little patience with or tolerance for UK exceptionalism. Single Market participation without Schengen membership isn't ruled out, but the UK seeking it would send an unhelpful signal.

Maybe. When change comes, it can come quickly. There will come a point where public patience with Brexit is exhausted, and there will be no electoral advantage in being aggressively Eurosceptic — as in, while some potential voters will reward aggressive Euroscepticism, more won't, and it will generally be an electoral negative. Once both parties perceive this to be the case, you'll be surprised how quickly aggressive Euroscepticism can be marginalised in British politics.

But what the EU will want is to see this happening in both parties, and in a sustained way - they don't want to be seduced by the honeyed words and blandishments of a government of one party, only to find that with a change of government the fox is in the henhouse again. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, when the UK does start to make nice, the EU's attitude is something like "maybe join the Single Market on fairly standard terms and then, when you've spent about ten years there without defacating on the floor, if you're interested in accession, come and talk to us."

All that is true. But, remember, we are looking at how the EU would respond to an approach from the UK seeking a closer relationship, and for that approach to be made at all the UK's political climate and culture would have to have changed significantly from what it is now.

And, yes, we're a long way from there being anyone, in either of the dominant parties, arguing that Britain should be party to ever closer union among the peoples of Europe. But, remember, that's not a characteristic of EFTA, the EEA or the Single Market. Norway has twice (or is it three times?) rejected EU membership in national referendums, but this isn't an obstacle to their participation in the EEA.

A bit late to the whole discussion but I think what is being missed in the whole Labour stance to Brexit and them not saying it is bad and they will take the country back into the EU at the first opportunity, there is a built in 5 year review for the TCA. Most likely this was done for elections so the new government would have a chance to try and change some items they campaigned on.

My hope is that Labour can do a lot with this review of the trade agreement and not touch the sovereign stance of the UK and the EU. It will not be single market and customs union, but it will be better than what they have now. That is the first step. It took those wanting to leave the EU decades to get to the point where they got their referendum, it may just take those that want to rejoin the same amount of time.

We have to be real as well though, the same voters that praise the Tories for opening foodbanks in their constituency will need to be won over. The fact that foodbanks were not needed under Labour is not a consideration, they see action from the Tories to help people. It is weird but it is what it is.

I agree, but the posts about Labour and Starmer is a little shortsighted in my opinion. Politics is a game that adults play and the game for Labour is not to appease us in Ireland that was always hoping for a reverse of Brexit or when that was not possible a soft as possible Brexit. The reality is that while May screwed up with her red lines she also knew the reality of the Irish Border and her deal where the UK would align with NI to keep peace was the reality check that people needed to hear. But they didn't, Labour and the LibDems were emboldened to try and reverse Brexit when that was the best deal on the table in hindsight and Johnson delivered an even worse deal for everyone in the UK. The Leavers get to shout how this is not a true Brexit and why it is failing due to the NIP and Remainers get a hard Brexit that proved them right but is hurting the country.

So now we are in the position where Brexit is still denied as a problem by Sunak and company as to why the country is failing and to be honest a lot of people will still agree with him. The difference is they are willing to back Labour if they will improve their lives as long as they don't bring Brexit back as those 5 years spent fighting about it made everyone tired.

But some just want Starmer and Labour to go out and say, we will take the UK back into the EU as Brexit was a mistake and we need to fix the mess you voted for. If anyone thinks the same message that people rejected in 2019 will work because it is Starmer instead of Corbyn, well they are kidding themselves. You have to add in the Labour left hating Starmer because he is doing better than Corbyn and their willingness to sit with the Tories for another 5 years instead of being proved wrong about Corbyn. So the strategy is clear to me, stay away from Brexit but when in power start working on small details to make it easier for companies. Once you have shown you can be trusted in power, and not from the opposition benches, then go further.

Look, I could be wrong and Starmer is a true blue Brexiter and this is his chance to go for a hard Brexit, but we all know he is not. He seems a realist, as a lawyer you have to be, and to change the country for good you have to actually be in charge of the country. Fat good Corbyn and his, while popular and appealing policies, did when he lost by a huge margin. I am also disappointed that Starmer rolled back on promises he made to get elected leader in 2020, but then again the world is a hugely different place now for the UK. If he had stuck to his pledges without taking into consideration the new reality we have today I would be more worried as it would show somebody that is out of touch. But it doesn't mean what he says will be to the liking of people.

From last Thursday but I only saw it now:

Just the Irish wing of the company it seems.

The situation is slightly different.

As I understand it, Iceland (UK) sold off its Irish operations and now its only financial interest is in the profit it makes from the wholesale sale of stock to the Irish company. Clearly, that profit wasn't large enough to induce them to do what they would need to do to be able to supply stock fit for import into the EU. Whether this was a calculated decision that they weren't going to make the investment required or incompetence or a blend of both remains to be seen.

However Tesco Ireland is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tesco in the UK. So Tesco's financial interest in the Irish operation goes beyond the profit margin on wholesale supplies to Ireland; the profits earned by the Irish stores also accrue to Tesco. Therefore Tesco has a greater financial incentive to do what it needs to do in order to be able to supply stock fit for import into the EU, or alternatively to find new EU-based supply chains for its Irish stores.

It's by no means impossible for a UK producer to position itself to be able to supply EU customers reliably. But it's not a trivial exercise, and it requires exports to EU at scale to justify the commitment. Decline in the UK export of goods has largely impacted small and medium businesses, who just don't have the resources, or the scale of business, for it to make sense to gear up to comply with EU requirements. Large businesses have had much less adverse impact. And Tesco is a large business.