“Market access”: don’t leave home without it?

I’ve recently noticed a subtle tactic that effectively allows pro-Brexit politicians to dodge inconvenient truths about their views.

The basic Brexit dilemma is one that I’ve discussed several times on this blog. In a nutshell, it’s this. Those who voted Leave were promised both continued membership of the EU single market (which is vital to our economy), and an end to the reciprocal free movement of people (which right-wing campaigners have long linked to fears about migration). But membership of the single market and its four key freedoms (movement of goods, services, capital and people) are two sides of the same coin. No country, EU or otherwise, has ever managed the feat of keeping one while abandoning the other.

Despite this, during the campaign, the leading lights of Leave were perfectly happy to promise both to different people at different times — even, sometimes, to the same people at the same time. So how did they manage this feat without being exposed?

One answer lies in a clever shift of the terms of the debate. This is almost too subtle to notice at first, but you begin to see it everywhere once it’s been pointed out. Leave campaigners talk about “access” to the single market, but they never define what kind of “access” they are talking about.

There are at least three very different ways in which a country might hope to “access” the EU’s single market.

  • Full membership. This is the gold standard. As an EU member (for now), we not only enjoy tariff-free trade across borders, but we also help to run the market by agreeing common rules with our neighbouring countries. In essence, the entire Union of 500 million people is a single domestic market for British businesses.
  • “Full access”. This is what Brexit campaigners often claim to aspire to, at least until they’re challenged. A country that has “full access” to the single market can trade freely with EU countries in goods (if not necessarily in services), but it has to accept all the rules of the market without having any say on them — including, of course, the free movement of people. Countries like Norway and Switzerland are in this category.
  • “Access”. This is so vague that it could mean anything. Barring some kind of embargo, any country in the world can “access” the single market from the outside, as long as it’s prepared to pay the appropriate tariffs and meet the appropriate standards. This can happen either in a default World Trade Organisation framework, or under some country-specific trade agreement. But this is a very different kettle of fish from the “access” we currently enjoy. Businesses who “access” the market in this way are at a significant competitive disadvantage compared to businesses that are genuinely inside the market — and it’s the easiest thing in the world to configure market rules to squeeze out external competitors.

In debates, pro-Brexit campaigners cleverly shift between these three different meanings in order to sidestep challenges. And this helps them maintain the charade that we can somehow keep the economic benefits of EU membership while ignoring its rules.

In action, the sleight-of-hand looks something like this:

Brexiteer: “People are scared of migration! We must end our EU membership so we can end free movement!”
Challenger: “But there’s a mountain of evidence showing that the vote to leave the EU is already doing severe damage for our economy. Actually quitting will be even worse.”
Brexiteer: “Nonsense! We can have full access to the single market without being a member. Just look at Norway and Switzerland — they do OK, don’t they?”
Challenger: “But Norway and Switzerland both accept free movement and have more migration than we do. And they still pay into the EU budget and accept all its rules without getting a vote on those rules.”
Brexiteer: “Who said anything about Norway and Switzerland? Of course we can still access the single market on our own terms. If Canada can do it, why can’t we?”

The type of “access” under discussion at the end of the conversation is totally different from the type at the beginning. But, nine times out of ten, this manoeuvre gets the Brexiteer off the hook.

Here are some real-life examples of the ambiguity at work:

Of course, no amount of sneaky debating tactics can change the reality. Sooner or later, the Brexit brigade are going to have to come clean about the fact that at least one of their central campaign promises will have to be dropped — and when that happens, many Leave voters will quite rightly complain that that’s not what they signed up for.

Posted in:

9 Comments

  1. The UK membership conditions are the very best among all 28 EU members.
    No Schengen but full border control, No Euro, numerous Opt-ins/-outs and the very large ‘I want my money back’ rebate.

    The UK was among the most positive for the 10 (+2) new members from East Europe. And the UK invited all citizens from these countries to come and work in the UK from 2004, where other EU members – e.g. Germany – had a 7 years grace period with gradual increasing free access til Germany.

    The benefits to the UK economy was very significant until the crisis, but even now these ‘new Brits’ continue to benefit the UK economy.

    Lars 🙂

  2. Don’t forget, Switzerland’s access to the Single Market will disappear next year, unless they have a second referendum that reverses the one held in 2014 which adopted restrictions on the freedom of movement of people.

  3. Well said, time more MPs wised up and had the courage to stand against this, Brexit isn’t going to work and if it happens we’ll be worse off even in the best case scenario. I don’t want to lose my small business based on lies, half-truths and outright racism.

  4. Thanks for giving us such a clear explanation, Richard. It’s what we should have received from the govt & the popular press in the run up to the referendum.
    I still don’t fully understand the references to Canada. Could you please explain?

  5. Thank you for this clear separation of the language and subtle change in the Leave spokes people during the debate.
    I put huge responsibility onto journalists who continually failed to challenge this lack of consistency in argument and language.

  6. I respect your struggle for a Socialist Europe Richard. But our position and strategy on Europe…and the character of our Opposition to the Tories depends critically on the program our Party is (sincererly?) welded to… which in turn depends on the outcome of the current Leadership Contest. If I have missed your contribution to that debate please accept my apologies…but, as you hold an office of considerable influence, may I ask : “what exactly is your position?” Regards K.

  7. Well, all of this was always clear to me – which is why I have always believed that leaving the EU would be very bad for the UK and all its people. It was only people who were stupid and ignorant who were ever deceived by the Leave lies (sorry to put this so bluntly, but it’s the truth). There is, of course, a very nasty undercurrent of xenophobia and downright racism running beneath the surface of the Leave campaign’s lies and deceit. Many people voted Leave simply because they want to stop immigration – which leaving the EU will not do. There was immigration before the UK joined the EEC (as it then was), and most immigrants into the UK still come from outside the EU. This doesn’t stop the EU getting the blame – I have read comments elsewhere about the EU being responsible for immigration from Africa, India, and so on, which, of course, has nothing at all to do with the EU.

    The referendum is a very nasty example of scapegoating. People are unhappy, for various reasons, and they want to pin the blame somewhere (never on themselves, of course). The EU has been made the scapegoat for just about everything that anyone in the UK is unhappy about – even though, in reality, in at least some cases the EU actually has a positive effect on whatever issue is in question.

    There is only one way forward – STOP BREXIT NOW!

  8. So glad to see some UK politician actually _do_ understand the situation. Coming from the outside, I wondered for a moment if it wasn’t _my_ understanding of the system that was flawed from the beginning !!
    And EFTA is out anyway, as Norway already said they would veto UK entrance, so…

  9. The current Labour leadership election has sadly ignored the vital issue of Brexit . Jeremy Corbyn has called for the immediate implementation of clause 50. This would mean a hurried exit in 2 years, which would be probably against UK’s interest. Owen Smith did not push for this and has said he would not.
    Many jobs would be likely to be lost-but not Corbyn’s. Do his supporters realise this and were Labour members asked before Corbyn made this decision?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

seventeen − 13 =

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.