Common Market 2.0 has mutated yet again ahead of a new round of indicative votes on Brexit options tonight. The scheme to keep the UK in the EU’s single market and something like a customs union has been changed with the aim of getting the support of Labour, the SNP and the DUP. It has succeeded with the first two.
But this idea, which is being promoted by a cross-party group of MPs led by the Conservative Nick Boles, is still highly problematic. It isn’t fully specified and parts of it may not be deliverable (see Motion D).
What’s more, if it ever came to pass, it would turn us into rule-takers on a massive scale – following trade deals and regulations without a vote on them. That would be a massive blow to our pride. Such a scheme would therefore be unlikely to stick, meaning we would continue to wrestle with the outcome of Brexit for years to come.
The new version of Common Market 2.0 adds a promise of “alignment” with the EU’s Customs Code and “agreement” on commercial policy. That turns the proposal into something close to a customs union – although it still uses the woolly language of customs “arrangement”.
This has been done to appeal to Labour. However, Common Market 2.0 still leaves open the possibility that the customs arrangement might be temporary – while Labour’s policy is that it should be permanent.
Boles’ new version also nods in Labour’s direction by calling for the UK to have a “say” on future EU trade deals. This is what Jeremy Corbyn wants. But is it deliverable? That rather depends on what one means by a “say”. Of course, the EU might let the UK lobby it during trade talks with other countries, but it would never give it a vote or the power to stop EU deals it didn’t like.
Meanwhile, a clause suggesting we might not need to follow the single market’s free movement rules has been axed from Boles’ new version. This seems to have been done to woo the SNP, which is rightly concerned that ending free movement would damage Scotland.
Finally, there are two modifications to appeal to the DUP. One is a new clause on trade in agricultural products. This would see the UK and EU “agree relevant protocols” to keep trade frictionless. That’s important if the Irish border is to be kept open. The language on trying to get rid of the controversial “backstop” arrangement has also been toughened up.
But there are still big questions about the scheme. Nothing, for example, is said about money – whereas, in practice, we could end up paying more than our current membership fee to enjoy the single market and customs union since, after leaving the EU, we wouldn’t benefit from our £4 billion a year “rebate” any longer.
Nor is anything said about how disputes would be resolved in the customs “arrangement”. In practice, we are likely to have to follow the EU’s jurisdiction in one way or another.
It’s also unclear whether the other EEA countries such as Norway and Iceland would want us to join their club. Norwegian politicians especially are wary. The opposition Labour party is outright opposed, worried it will make Norway’s relationships more unstable.
Finally, it is unclear how Common Market 2.0 would ever be delivered given that the prime minister, most of the Cabinet and the vast majority of Tory MPs are against it. Before it was signed and sealed, there could be a new hard Brexit Tory leader who would tear it up.
If Common Market 2.0 moves onto the next stage in today’s votes, it will need to be specified in more detail. Its backers will also have to show that both the EU and the EEA are prepared to approve it.
If, after all that, it still looks a runner, it will need to be put to the people. After all, turning us into a rule-taker bears no resemblance to the “take back control” Brexit promised in 2016.