Sir, – The strategy outlined by Theresa May for the UK’s future trade relationship with the EU is to have membership of the single market in all but name, and to leave the customs union while retaining the main benefits. The two key objections to membership of the single market that she identified were free movement of people and supranational institutions, both of which were core principles of the Treaty of Rome, making a nonsense of the usual claim that the UK’s real problem was the way the community developed after the 1975 referendum. The truth is that the UK is returning to its postwar preference for a global trade policy and a free-trade arrangement in Europe, neither of which it managed to achieve at that time. The development of bilateral free-trade agreements such as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (Ceta) has encouraged the UK to believe that this strategy could work this time.
In their 1961 EEC application, the UK sought special terms on trade and agriculture, and the Six refused. This time a strategy of having most the benefits but few of the obligations of the single market is unlikely to survive first contact with the EU 27. As before, there are threats, then to withdraw troops from Europe and now to become a European “Singapore’” with low tax and deregulation.
The EU will not be punishing the UK when it refuses to allow it to cherry-pick the trade aspects of the Treaty of Rome that it signed 45 years ago next Sunday. It will, in fact, be protecting the single market and ensuring that no European country can gain a competitive advantage by refusing to abide by its common rules.
The choice was made by the Six at a meeting in Messina in June 1955 to create a continental scale market with the four freedoms rather than a free-trade area. History and geography still matter in Europe, and that choice is unlikely to be overturned just because the English and Welsh have now changed their minds.
The UK’s leverage in these negotiations will be weak compared to the EU. It sends 44 per cent of its exports to the EU, while the EU only sends 8 per cent to the UK.
The formal trade negotiations will not begin until the UK has left the EU in 2019, so if the UK leaves the single market at the same time, it will default to trade based on WTO tariffs. That would have very serious consequences here because 37 per cent of Irish agri-food exports goes to the UK. The farming and agri-food sectors would need significant financial assistance to protect jobs and secure new markets and support from the EU would be essential.
Over time, the UK would negotiate a free-trade agreement but it would not match existing arrangements, and most likely would still require concessions by the UK on free movement and EU regulations.
The best way to avoid a customs Border on this island is for Northern Ireland, exceptionally, to remain in the customs union but that would only be possible if the free-trade agreement includes the agri-food sector.
Whatever happens, Ireland’s future will remain with the EU. The alternative would be a return to the UK’s orbit and sterling; a cheap food policy that would destroy our farming and agri-food sectors; and replacing a market of 445 million people for one of 65 million. – Yours, etc,
BLAIR HORAN,
Rathfarnham, Dublin 16.
Sir, – It seems that Britain would prefer membership of a loose-knit “European trading group” rather than membership of the full-blown European Union with all its concomitant social and political re-engineering, and that the unelected Brussels Eurocratic elite is intent on punishing Britain for having the temerity to leave its creation.
But surely if the benefits from being in the EU are so great, then won’t leaving be punishment enough, or are those benefits largely illusory?
It would have been much better if Britain had voted to remain and then fought to reform the EU’s bloated and undemocratic institutions. – Yours, etc,
ROGER BLACKBURN,
Naul, Co Dublin.
Sir, – Now that Theresa May has confirmed a hard Brexit, we need to plan for a full and fixed Border with Northern Ireland. Maybe we should consult Donald Trump and get his suggestions as to how we’ll get Britain to pay for it. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN CULLEN,
Rathfarnham, Dublin 16.
Sir, – Are we in the process of discovering a new phenomenon, May’s Boson, membership of a club without being an actual member? Will it turn out to be another thing with imaginary mass? – Yours, etc,
JOSEPH MACKEY,
Glasson,
Athlone,
Co Westmeath.
Sir, – So, now we know. Brexit means Brexit. – Yours, etc,
ALFE NINBÖRN,
Stockholm.
Sir, – The UK chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond has suggested that the UK could transform its economic model into that of a “corporate tax haven” if the UK fails to secure an agreement on access to the European Union’s single market. This echoes Theresa May’s pledge before Christmas to lower the UK’s corporate tax rate once the UK withdraws from the European Union.
However, tax policy and national corporate tax regimes in the European Union are set by national governments, and lie beyond the scope of the European treaties.
Currently the likes of Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ireland, Hungary, Malta and Romania all have lower rates of corporate tax than the UK’s rate of 19 per cent (which is set to be lowered to 18 per cent in 2020).
The straw-man argument that the EU currently has any authority over the UK’s corporate tax regime reflects the lack of a clear plan by the UK government for the upcoming article 50 negotiations.
The Irish Government and media must call out the UK government and anyone involved in the upcoming negotiations when they seek to introduce factors into the debate which lie beyond the scope of EU membership, particularly when they pertain to core aspects of national industrial policy. – Yours, etc,
BARRY COLFER
Department of Politics
and International Studies,
University of Cambridge,
England.
Sir, – I listen with a growing sense of sadness and incredulity to the endless talk about Brexit and the future of the European Union. Our focus is largely on how Brexit will negatively effect our economy and the economy of other member states. In the midst of all the talk about a “soft” or “hard” Brexit the original vision of a united Europe appears to be lost.
In the first half of the 20th century Europe was almost destroyed by two wars. Millions of people died and countless lives were destroyed. It was out of the utter destruction of these two wars that the vision for a united Europe was born. By bringing the countries of Europe together it was hoped that we would never again see Europe at war with itself.
What short memories we have. That vision for a peaceful Europe has been forgotten in our preoccupation with economic growth and protection of our borders.
I can only hope that future generations do not pay the ultimate price for our loss of memory. We should recall that those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. – Yours, etc,
PAULA MOLLOY,
Baldoyle,
Dublin 13.