On 4 December, the UK and the EU failed to reach an agreement to move on to the next stage of the Brexit talks, with reports suggesting the Democratic Unionist Party had refused to accept proposed concessions on the Irish border. Anand Menon explains why there are strong reasons for shared regulatory frameworks on both sides of the Irish border to continue following Brexit, and why it remains exceptionally challenging to resolve the issue.
Ireland is hogging the Brexit headlines. While some reports on Monday suggested that the UK and EU were close to a solution on the vexed question of the Irish border, still others indicated that the Democratic Unionist Party, on which Theresa May depends for her slim Commons majority, would not accept any differentiation between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
And yet such differentiation has to be granted if the UK government intends to square the circle it has drawn. Somehow, the UK must leave the single market and customs union while providing the Republic with the political commitment it has demanded that the intra-Irish border must remain invisible.
Much has been written and said about the tangled politics of the Irish border. Yet a couple of issues tend to get lost in the hubbub. First, while obviously the government in Dublin is hugely concerned about what happens to the intra-Ireland border, it is also arguably the most anxious among the EU27 to move on to phase two of the Brexit process and begin negotiating a close and mutually beneficial trade relationship. And for good reason. A recent report by the Irish Central Statistics Office underlines the close trading links that bind the two countries.
Ireland is simultaneously demanding that its requirements for the withdrawal phase be met while being the most anxious to proceed. And of course this is partly because of fears related to a violent sectarian past. But a focus on this has shifted attention from the variety of more mundane, yet equally important factors militating in favour of continued regulatory alignment between the north and south of the island. Simply put, divergence would impact on people’s lives in a variety of different ways.
Throughout last summer, British, Irish and EU officials undertook a detailed “mapping” exercise intended to examine all the areas of north-south co-operation which would be affected by Brexit. They identified more than 140 such areas. The exercise has served to underline the serious challenges posed by any regulatory divergence between the Republic and the North.
Healthcare is one area that stands to be profoundly affected. Joint membership of the single market ensures single standards for medical devices, mutual recognition of medical qualifications, mutual acceptance of cross border ambulance activity and so on. Patients on the island of Ireland can fill prescriptions written by doctors on one side of the border in pharmacies on the other side of the border.
But for this to happen, doctors and pharmacists need to be working to the same standards and need to know medicines are approved in both the North and South. The EU provides the legislative framework to make this possible. Continued regulatory harmonisation is the only way to ensure it continues to be so.
Likewise, when it comes to agriculture, above and beyond the questions about trade and tariffs that dominate public debate, the single market and common rules are crucial. So, for instance, authorities on both sides of the border co-operate closely when it comes to managing the risks associated with animal health. For example, they meet regularly to work on contingency planning in case of an outbreak.
This co-operation happens through the North South Ministerial Council working groups and is based on provisions and conditions laid down in EU legislation. Removing this framework from Northern Ireland would not only impose a border, and make co-operation more complex, but would increase the risk of an outbreak of disease.
Transport, too, would be massively affected by regulatory divergence. A variety of bus services cross the border on a regular basis. Services scheduled by Bus Éireann, Translink and other private operators, services going from Donegal to Scotland which collect passengers in Northern Ireland, local operators bringing children to school, tour buses and privately hired buses all benefit from the common regulations that exist. Bus services that cross the border do so easily because the services are regulated at an EU level. EU legislation ensures that bus services comply with the same vehicle safety standards, driver hour regulations and other safety measures.
It also enables authorities on both sides of the border to harmonise co-operation in enforcing safety measures. Removing this framework would hinder the ability of services to operate across the border, adding additional complexity and burdens, undermining confidence in the safety of services, and reducing the ability of authorities to ensure that all adhere to high safety standards. Ultimately, of course, it would be ordinary passengers who would suffer.
And finally, consider energy. Consumers on the island of Ireland benefit from the existence of a wholesale single electricity market, with all of the economic and social benefits that come with that. The single electricity market is an integrated wholesale electricity supply system built entirely upon binding EU legislation and policies. If it unravels because Northern Ireland no longer applies EU legislation, the electricity supply market on the island will fracture. If nothing else, the loss of efficiencies of scale implies that electricity will become more expensive for consumers.
So the Irish border question is not simply about sectarianism. Nor, indeed, is it all about tariffs. It is also about rules, and the impact those rules have on ordinary people on both sides of the border. These citizens live in a world in which the existence of the same regulatory framework shapes numerous aspects of their daily lives.
Obviously, ensuring an absence of regulatory divergence will be challenging. The political problems are all too familiar, but they are not the only ones. There will also be issues around Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s own internal market (and whether, for instance, the terms of new UK trade deals dealing with, say, chlorinated chicken will apply to the province).
Whatever path is chosen will be problematic. But don’t expect Dublin to stop demanding some certainty about the lives of its citizens, however much it also wants to move on to talks about trade.
Please read our comments policy before commenting.
Note: This piece originally appeared in the New Statesman and at UK in a Changing Europe. The article gives the views of the author, not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: Andrein (CC BY-SA 3.0)
_________________________________
Anand Menon – King’s College London / UK in a Changing Europe
Anand Menon is Director at The UK in a Changing Europe and Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs at King’s College London.
Interesting article, assumes a regulatory breakdown by the UK government, lower animal welfare standards, and food standards.
While polarized perspective attracts readers, it diminishes the credibility of the author, as unfortunately the tone remains introvertly European, and no focus on standardizing global regulations can be found.
While global standards dismissed for being blue sky, they are in evidence daily, even in the EU.
So what is the way forward?
A Brexiteer homeland reservate that pays for its own fence and control posts that are demanded by WTO rules?
A walk-out in Brussels would not have a majority in Parliament either and only prolong the painful exodus of capital and jobs.
I hope that the hardliners do not stage a coup and align the Non-Murdock press.
Another strawman argument barely disguising a Remain author.
“divergence would impact on people’s lives in a variety of different ways”
This is written as if “divergence” is bbth a given AND harmful.
It goes on to imply that all of the “convergences” and “co-operation” are something to do with the EU.
Take the unsubtle emotive one about ambulances crossing the border.
Surely it must be obvious that this is one of those practical matters that has evolved LOCALLY?
…. And such cross-border co-operation is hardly unusual – and Protocols agreed.
Take Busingen – a German town entirely surrounded by Switzerland (not EU).
“According to article 31 ZK, Büsingen is not part of the customs territory of the European Union.
Although Büsingen is otherwise a German town, because it belongs to the Swiss customs territory, EU economic regulations (other than those covered by Swiss–EU treaties) do not apply.”
Does anyone think there is a “hard” border around Busingen ????
It has become crystal clear that any “hard” border in Ireland would be on the Republic’s side at the behest of the EU – except that UK broadcasters keep framing the issue as a UK problem !
“This is written as if “divergence” is bbth a given AND harmful.
It goes on to imply that all of the “convergences” and “co-operation” are something to do with the EU.”
Truly strange statements.
1. It’s a basic principle of mainstream economic thinking that divergences in regulatory frameworks can distort free trade. If you want to claim that this kind of divergence isn’t harmful then you have to write something to back that up. It would be bad enough for someone to overlook this point, but the article also lists several other areas (e.g. healthcare) where this divergence could be harmful – you’ve ignored all of them in your response and accused the author of simply assuming divergence will be harmful, despite the fact he’s explicitly chosen to justify that statement with several hundred words of examples. That’s an incredibly bad argument and suggests you didn’t bother to read/understand the article before you responded.
2. The EU acts to harmonise regulations. The reason states have chosen to do this through the EU is to prevent regulatory divergences and facilitate free trade. The idea the EU has nothing to do with regulatory harmonisation across Europe is utterly incoherent. What you’re trying to do appears to be a very poorly constructed attempt to suggest that everything the EU does to generate regulatory harmonisation can simply be recreated from outside, but to go as far as to suggest that current regulatory harmonisation has nothing to do with the EU is downright silly.
3. The UK faces a choice. It can either continue to implement (or mirror) EU regulations and prevent any regulatory divergence from happening. Or it can leave the single market, pursue its own regulations, and regulatory divergences will occur, with all the downsides that entails. You seem to be intent on trying to argue we can pursue a different regulatory framework without there being a divergence (or that quite laughably the rest of the EU will somehow coordinate their regulations with our own, allowing us to effectively shape EU regulations from outside for literally no good reason). This isn’t much of an argument.
What we’re left with is a very muddled, confused attempt to attack what is actually quite a reasonable and well informed article. Sadly the kind of response you’ve provided here is all too common in the current environment: heavy on grandstanding but painfully lacking in common sense.
HD
Either you haven’t read what I wrote …
… or read what you think I wrote based on your world view.
(or possibly I wasn’t clear enough and made assumptions about readers …)
1. “mainstream economic thinking that divergences in regulatory frameworks can distort free trade”
Are these “mainstream economists” also Corporatists – who see everything through the prism of ever larger “economies of scale” ?
This approach tends towards monopolies.
Mono-Regulation can lead to lack of innovation.
In short, “competition” between Regulations can (but not always) be good.
Northern Ireland / UK should be free to “diverge” if that is the democratic will.
Part of the democratic process will be any impact on economies.
“you’ve ignored ….(several other areas (e.g healthcare) ….in your response”
Not at all.
I cited cross- border ambulances as ONE example – making the point that most of the “areas” cited were probably agreed locally on practical grounds – by “equals” – democratically accountable…..
– NOT imposed by the EU.
(There may even be sunset clauses / review dates where such local arrangements could cease.)
2. “The reason states have chosen to do this through the EU is to prevent regulatory divergences and facilitate free trade.”
That’s the publically stated aim – perhaps the idealistic aim – but at best wishful thinking – in practice anti-competition !
I never said :
” the EU has nothing to do with regulatory harmonisation across Europe”
(Why do Remainers mis-quote people ….?)
In fact “harmonisaton” has been one of the root causes of anti-EU sentiment.
I recall in the 1990’s the claim that Spanish lawnmowers would be banned for being too noisy/smoky for German standards – and this justified “harmonisation”.
In practice this stifles competition.
The Germans should have been free to have tougher standards – as long as they were based on objective outcomes (not manufacturing design) – that Spanish makers could choose to comply with.
Meanwhile the Spanish domestic market should have been free to continue with smoky/noisy mowers if they wanted.
This conflicting approach to Regs was debated at the time – and the free-market lost !
I said:
“Surely it must be obvious that this is one of those practical matters that has evolved LOCALLY?” (i.e. not from the EU)
But now you mention it ….
A lot of Regs start life at World Trade bodies (many based in Geneva) – with the EU merely repackaging them.
Outside the EU, the UK can resume its seat and start influencing such Regs before they reach the EU.
e.g. Norway which sits on the Automotive body (despite making barely 1,000 cars) – while the UK (making 2,000,000 cars) has to rely on that nice Estonian EU Rep.
3. contains the false assumption that
” leave the single market, pursue its own regulations, and regulatory divergences” leads to ,
“ALL THE DOWNSIDES THAT ENTAILS”
A) 15,000 of the EU’s 22,000 laws have little to do with cross-border trade
B) UK exporters will ALWAYS have to compy with the standards of the receiving market – wherever.
C) The UK Govt (like most Govts) will probably maintain “convergence” where practical – reserving the right to differ when prompted by domestic preferences.
Any “downside” can be debated at the time.
It’s about democracy and accountability – not a world managed by perfect administrators !
I hope you are longer “muddled” or “confused” 😉
The fundamental problem here is you’re attempting to have an argument without having the slightest understanding of the basics of what you’re discussing. There’s so much confusion in what you’ve written here that it’s a waste of time attempting to take it on point by point.
For instance, the point under discussion here is that regulatory divergence distorts free trade. You’ve responded to that point by typing (in capital letters as if it’s somehow a zinger of a response) that “UK exporters will ALWAYS have to comply with the standards of the receiving market”. As a response, that’s utterly meaningless. The reason why regulatory divergence is a problem for businesses that trade with the EU is that if regulations diverge then businesses will have to comply with UK regulations and EU regulations (potentially even manufacture two entirely different products at great cost). That’s worse than the status quo where they only have to comply with one regulation, hence it’s harmful to trade. The fact that you’ve responded with that line shows you haven’t understood the problem.
And I’m sorry, but I’m not a university lecturer and I’m not going to spend my day trying to explain fundamentals like that to you over and over again while you throw tired soundbites back (we’ve all heard a thousand times before that some EU regulations have their origins in other international institutions – Richard North has been banging on about this for over a decade) and pretend you’re somehow “winning” a debate about the EU. That’s simply a waste of time: like trying to debate astrophysics with a duck, or explain to a Chelsea fan why he should support Man United. If you want to churn this gibberish out then go for it, but rest assured that until you have a solid grasp of the subject you’re not going to convince anybody of anything.
There is not a hard border around Büsingen. It is part of the “Schweizer Zollgebiet”, the major currency there is the Swiss Frank, and it even has a Swiss post code (though it also has a German one). . It also is fairly small (pop. 1358). https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BCsingen_am_Hochrhein . I suppose the analogous solution for Ulster would for it to completely accept EU regulations, as Eire does. I can’t really see the DUP wearing that one, can you?