Blog Post

Getting accustomed to Brexit – UK and the customs union scenario

The Labour Party’s support of customs union membership has the potential to change the course of Brexit, with 13 months left to close negotiations. This week we review the commentary around the possibility of a post-Brexit EU-UK Customs Union.

By: Date: March 5, 2018 Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance

Monday, 26th February 2018, 10.56 AM. Speaking about Labour’s vision for Britain after Brexit, Jeremy Corbyn communicates the party’s support for a future customs union:
“Labour would seek a final deal that gives full access to European markets and maintains the benefits of the single market and the customs union (…) with no new impediments to trade and no reduction in rights, standards and protections.”

The debate around the shape that trade relations between the EU and the UK will take after Brexit is not new. Concerning Labour’s position in particular, the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg notices “the party’s tip toes towards this policy have been long anticipated”. In the blogosphere and the media, the conversation has been revolving around the existing trade agreements between the EU and third-countries, so as to try and understand which existing agreement could better provide a model for negotiations.

As André Sapir explains: “At the momentthe UK by virtue of being a member of the EU, is a member of both the European Single Market and the European Customs Union. The Customs Union and the Single Market are two different ‘animals’. Being in the Customs Union means that basically, there are no customs duties, no tariffs in trade between the UK and the rest of the EU; Being a member of the Single Market means that, in addition, there are also no regulatory differences between the UK and the EU.” 

The possibility of an EEA-type of solution (the “Norway” solution) has been raised. André Sapir clarifies that: “Norway is not a member of the EU but it belongs to the European Single Market. However, Norway does not belong to the EU Customs Union.” What this means is that “there is a border, there are customs duties, but there is no paperwork as far as the regulation is concerned”Jean-Claude Piris, among others, has pointed out that this would involve contributing to the EU budget, abiding by the rules of the single market and ultimately giving up some sovereignty. These countries have formally accepted the four freedoms and have agreed to be bound by the judgments of the EFTA court. In case of divergence with the EU court on internal market law, the EU court would prevail.

Turkey can provide an alternative source of inspiration, as Wolfgang Münchau writes for the FT: “The UK cannot stay in the European customs union simply because it is only available to member states. But the UK could have a bilateral customs union agreement with the EU, perhaps one that is similar to the deal the EU has with Turkey (…) [thoughthe EU would impose tough rules on Britain because its economy is much bigger than Turkey and geographically closer to the EU’s economic centre.

Dan Roberts from The Guardian says: “The catch, however, is that a customs union automatically implies a common external trade tariff with third-party countries. […] Such a diminution of international influence would be a tough sell for any British government.[…] But insisting that Brussels continues to consult the UK when it negotiates with countries such as the US and China is not quite as far-fetched as some critics have been suggesting in the wake of Corbyn’s speech. A deal struck between the EU and US that failed to involve the UK and that subsequently also led to the unravelling of the post-Brexit cross-Channel trade arrangements would be almost as undesirable for future Brussels trade negotiators as it is now. A genuine alliance of UK and EU negotiators operating as a unified bloc may also stand a much better chance of getting what it wants in Washington or Beijing than either could hope for operating alone.”

But a tailor-made bilateral customs union agreement is far from a silver bullet for all Brexit problems, the most salient being the Irish border. Put very simply by Sapir: “Customs union [without a] single market means that a border would remain.” Former UK deputy prime minister Nick Clegg argued on Twitter that: “Up to 17km queues and 30-hour waits at the Turkish/Bulgarian (EU) border show that a Customs Union only gets you so far. Customs Union without Single Market, just as Single Market without Customs Union (see checks at the Norway/Sweden border), leads to delays and queues.”

A reduction of regulatory barriers to trade is likely to be highly priced by the EU, judging by the recent positions on issues of state aid, taxation and labour and environmental standards, claims Aarti Shankar. Simon Wren Lewis goes further: “The UK was always going to stay in a customs union with the EU the moment that the EU put the Irish border as one of the three items to be settled at the first stage of negotiations. (…) To avoid a hard border Northern Ireland has to be in a customs union with the EU and in the Single Market for goods. (…) If this is helpful for goods, why not services which are the UK’s comparative advantage?”

Outside the scope of future trade relations, Chris Dillow adds that it is “poor management; lack of entrepreneurial spirits; insufficiently skilled workers; lack of investment; credit constraints; a lack of price competitiveness; and so on”, that are keeping the UK from exporting more – not membership of a customs union.

Thus far Theresa May has ruled out the possibility of a customs union. On the other side of the Channel, the president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, said on March 1, 2018:“London has definitively confirmed its red lines, including ‘no customs union’ and ‘no single market’. We acknowledge these red lines without enthusiasm and without satisfaction. But we must treat them seriously. With all their consequences. And one of the possible negative consequences of this kind of Brexit is a hard border on the island of Ireland. The EU wants to prevent this scenario. 

“Hence, if no other solution is found, the proposal [is] to ‘establish a common regulatory area comprising the Union and the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland’. And, until now, no-one has come up with anything wiser than that. […]There can be no frictionless trade outside of the customs union and the Single Market. Friction is an inevitable side effect of Brexit. In a few hours I will be asking in London whether the UK government has a better idea.

Facing this, there are four scenarios on the table, as summarised by Guntram Wolff: (a) either UK remains in customs union and single market or (b) has a creative new idea or (c) accepts some form of border control between UK and Northern Ireland or (d) goes back onfudge and accepts a border within [the] island of Ireland.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read article More on this topic
 

Opinion

An equity fund for a zombie-free and EU-wide recovery

Four guiding principles can help ensure a well designed EU equity fund.

By: Julia Anderson, Simone Tagliapietra and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 26, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

How will COVID-19 impact Brexit? The collision of two giant policy imperatives

The United Kingdom left the European Union on Jan. 31, 2020. Now, the U.K. must decide whether and how to extend the transition period, currently set to expire at the end of 2020.

By: Rebecca Christie Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 19, 2020
Read article Download PDF
 

Policy Brief

Rebooting Europe: a framework for a post COVID-19 economic recovery

COVID-19 has triggered a severe recession and policymakers in European Union countries are providing generous, largely indiscriminate, support to companies. As the recession gets deeper, a more comprehensive strategy is needed. This should be based on four principles: viability of supported entities, fairness, achieving societal goals, and giving society a share in future profits. The effort should be structured around equity and recovery funds with borrowing at EU level.

By: Julia Anderson, Simone Tagliapietra and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Energy & Climate, European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 13, 2020
Read article Download PDF More on this topic
 

Policy Contribution

The European Union’s post-Brexit reckoning with financial markets

In the negotiations between the European Union and the United Kingdom over their future relationship, we see a high probability of a weak contractual outcome, given the dominance of politics over considerations of market efficiency.

By: Rebecca Christie and Thomas Wieser Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 13, 2020
Read about event
 

Past Event

Past Event

ONLINE ROUND TABLE: Future of the EU-UK science cooperation

How do we rebuild and keep the science cooperation between the EU and the UK?

Speakers: Michael Leigh and Beth Thompson Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: March 17, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

The Sound of Economics Live - The Brussels effect: How the European Union rules the world

This was a live recording of an episode of the Sound of Economics, Bruegel's podcast series. The discussion centered around the book of Anu Bradford, The Brussels Effect.

Speakers: Anu Bradford, Ashoka Mody, Giuseppe Porcaro and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: March 3, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

The EU’s poverty reduction efforts should not aim at the wrong target

The EU cannot meet its ‘poverty’ targets, because the main indicator used to measure poverty actually measures income inequality. The use of the wrong indicator could lead to a failure to monitor those who are really poor in Europe, and a risk they could be forgotten.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: February 18, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Realpolitik of the day after Brexit

Compromises hammered out in the next 11 months, by both British and European negotiators, will dictate the UK’s economic landscape for decades to come

By: Maria Demertzis Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 31, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Britain faces a triple contradiction

If Boris Johnson can negotiate agreements that are better than the EU system, it would be a serious challenge for the 27

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 30, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Podcast

Podcast

The science of Brexit

On Saturday morning, the United Kingdom will wake up outside the European Union. After 37 years of collaboration, how will Brexit affect research and innovation in Europe and in the UK? What should be the next steps undertaken by both in order to maintain the same level of cooperation? This week, Nicholas Barrett is joined by Maria Demertzis, Guntram Wolff and Michael Leigh, Senior Adjunct Professor of European Studies at the Johns Hopkins University, to discuss a post-Brexit agreement for research and innovation.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 29, 2020
Read article Download PDF
 

Book/Special report

A post-Brexit agreement for research and innovation

This report sets out what the Wellcome Trust and Bruegel have learned from a project to simulate a negotiation process between the UK and EU to create a post-Brexit research and innovation agreement. Our negotiating scenario assumed that the UK had left the EU with a withdrawal agreement, and that the negotiation was taking place during a ‘standstill’ transition period.

By: Michael Leigh, Beth Thompson and Reinhilde Veugelers Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: January 28, 2020
Read about event
 

Past Event

Past Event

A post-Brexit agreement for research and innovation

What is the future of EU's and UK's relationship on research and innovation?

Speakers: Gina Dowding, Philippe Lamberts, Michael Leigh, Adrian Hayday, Clare Moody, Martin Muller, Joe Owen, Jaroslaw Pietras, Uta Staiger, André Sapir, Beth Thompson and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: January 28, 2020
Load more posts