Blog Post

Brexit, phase two (and beyond): The future of the EU-UK relationship

Whether it looks more like ‘CETA-plus’ or ‘EEA-minus’, the trade deal that emerges from phase two of the Brexit negotiations should not be the limit of ambition for future partnership between the EU and the UK

By: and Date: December 13, 2017 Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance

The European Commission has recommended to the Council that sufficient progress has been made in phase one of the EU-UK negotiations. With the Council expected to endorse the recommendation this week, phase-two discussions on the future relationship can start (possibly in March).

A possible timeline of the next steps in the EU-UK relationship is shown in the diagram below:

  • a one-year period of negotiations that will take us up to October/November of 2018, at the latest. This allows for the minimum time required for the new agreement to be ratified by the EU by March 2019 – the cut-off date for the UK to leave the EU.
  • After March 2019, a two-year period is envisaged in which the UK would most likely remain a full member of the EU single market and customs union, but without any voting rights. During this period, the UK would also remain bound by decisions of the European Court of Justice and continue to pay its full share in the EU budget. This should ensure a smooth transition from EU membership to the new EU-UK framework.
  • By March 2021, the new negotiated trade agreement between the EU and the UK will come into effect.

An alternative timeline could be as follows: by October/November 2018, the two parties have agreed on the broad contours of the future trade deal, but not on the details. In this case, the ratification process which will take place between that time and March 2019 would only be about the two-year interim arrangement. During this transition period, the UK would probably remain in the EU single market and customs union, and abide by EU budget and ECJ rules, like in the timeline described above. The only difference with the previous timeline would be that negotiations on the details of the trade deal would continue during the transition period, which would need to include sufficient time for the ratification of the agreement.

What can we expect the future EU-UK relationship to look like? Ideally it should encompass both a trade component as well as a more political, strategic component.

As far as trade is concerned, Liam Fox, the UK secretary of state for international trade, has recently declared that the UK would like an agreement with the EU that would be “virtually identical” to the one it has at the moment, as an EU member.

The EU side is willing to offer the UK a trade deal that looks either like the CETA arrangement with Canada, or the EEA agreement with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.

The EU side is willing to offer the UK a trade deal that looks either like the CETA arrangement with Canada, or the EEA agreement with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.

A CETA-type trade deal would fall much short of what the UK is looking for, mainly because it offers relatively limited access in services, with no passporting rights for financial services – an important sector for the UK.

On the other hand, an EEA-type agreement would give the UK much of what it is looking for in trade, including passporting rights for financial services. However, the EU insists that access to its single market, which EEA countries enjoy, must mean not only free movement of goods, services and capital, but also of labour – a demand that the UK is not willing to accept.

In other words, the UK is looking for a ‘CETA-plus’ (i.e. plus services, including financial services) or an ‘EEA-minus’ (i.e. minus free movement of labour) agreement. For its part, the EU is sticking to its CETA or EEA offer, without plus or minus. Whether there is room for a compromise between the two positions and at what price – in terms of UK contributions to the EU budget and with respect of ECJ decisions – is what the negotiations of phase two will really be about.

As an aside, but an important one, it should be mentioned that CETA and the EEA are both free-trade agreements (FTAs) rather than customs unions (CUs). Neither Canada on the one hand, nor Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein on the other, belong to the EU customs union. This implies that trade within CETA or the EEA requires rules of origin and therefore some border controls, which are absent inside the EU. In principle CETA-plus or EEA-minus could be CUs rather than FTAs, but it is unlikely that the UK would accept leaving the EU and yet remaining tied to its trade policy for longer than the transition period. As a matter of fact, among the many reciprocal preferential trade arrangements signed by the EU, all but one are FTAs. The only exception is the EU-Turkey CU that Turkey was keen to sign in 1995 as a step towards its EU candidate status, which it obtained in 1999.

Given the tight schedule of phase two, which requires a deal to be reached by October/November 2018, CETA-plus looks much more feasible than EEA-minus. For the EU, CETA plus would avoid getting into the discussion on the indivisibility of the single market’s four freedoms, which it considers sacrosanct at this stage and which EEA-minus would imply. For the UK, CETA-plus would probably require less contribution to the EU budget and less respect of ECJ decisions than EEA-minus, and therefore be easier to accept politically.

But the problem with a CETA-type agreement, even if it were upgraded to CETA-plus, is that it is an agreement designed for countries outside Europe, not for European neighbours – let alone for a neighbour with close economic and political ties, like the UK. So even if the future EU-UK trade agreement were “virtually identical” to the current trade arrangement inside the EU, it would miss the other dimensions of the EU-UK relationship.

Indeed, the discussion on the future relationship cannot stop at trade. The historical ties between the UK and continental European countries, individually and collectively, cannot be erased with EU withdrawal. Moreover, in a world of shifting economic powers and competing models for economic global engagement, nurturing natural alliances is crucial.

The EU-UK relationship is one such alliance that needs to be preserved and promoted. But for this to be ensured, the agreement reached at the end of phase two will need to allow for a certain fluidity to potentially morph it one day into a new partnership, of which trade would be just a single, albeit important, component.

To be specific, what we have in mind is for the possibility that, after the UK has left the EU and after the transition, the EU and the UK sit down again at the table of negotiations to try to reach a more ambitious agreement than the trade deal that will be the outcome of the phase-two negotiations. This agreement should, in accordance with Article 217 TFEU that defines association agreements, establish “an association involving reciprocal rights and obligations, common action and special procedures”. The areas of cooperation should be as broad as possible and cover not only economic matters, both inside and outside single market-related issues, but also internal and external security. Such agreement would create a new partnership between the EU and the UK to reflect historical alliances.

The way to ensure that the trade deal – whether it is concluded by October/November 2018 or during the two-year transition period – is only a step towards a more ambitious association agreement that allows for a genuine partnership, is to include appropriate language in the preamble of the trade agreement.


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.

View comments
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Policy Contribution

Equity finance and capital market integration in Europe

Facilitating the financing of European companies through external equity is a central ambition of European Union financial regulation, including in the European Commission’s capital markets union agenda. Against this background, the authors examine the present use of external equity by EU companies, the roles of listings on public markets, and the regulatory impediments in national laws. They assess to what extent EU market integration has overcome the crucial obstacle of shallow local capital markets.

By: Inês Goncalves Raposo and Alexander Lehmann Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: January 17, 2019
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Jan
22
08:00

Rules-based trading system and EU-Australia

At this event the Australian Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham will speak about Australia-EU bilateral trade, the FTA negotiations and the importance of multilateral rules-based trading system

Speakers: Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham, André Sapir and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Director's Cut: The economics of no-deal Brexit

Bruegel director Guntram Wolff is joined by senior fellow Zsolt Darvas to rake through the possibilities and probabilities inherent in a no-deal Brexit scenario, covering trade, the Irish border, citizens' rights and the EU budget.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 16, 2019
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

What 2019 could bring: A look inside the crystal ball

Economic performance prospects in Europe, the US and Asia in 2019. We start off by reviewing commentaries and predictions about the euro zone, which many commentators expect to perform below potential as uncertainties continue to dampen a still robust recovery.

By: Michael Baltensperger Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: January 14, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

EU budget implications of a no-deal Brexit

A no-deal Brexit would mean the UK’s contributions to the EU budget fall to zero as of March 30th 2019. The author here calculates an estimate of the budget shortfall that would have to be covered in this case, and how the burden would fall across different member states.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 14, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author

Policy Contribution

The implications of no-deal Brexit: is the European Union prepared?

The author, based on a note written for the Bundestag EU Committee, is exploring the possible consequences of a no-deal Brexit for the EU, assessing preparations on the EU side and providing guidance on the optimal strategy for the EU, depending on the choices made by the United Kingdom.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 14, 2019
Read article Download PDF More by this author

Parliamentary Testimony

German Bundestag

The implications of no-deal Brexit: is the EU prepared?

Hearing on Brexit in the EU Committee of Bundestag on 14 January 2019, exploring the possible consequences of a no-deal Brexit for the EU and assessing preparations on the EU side.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, German Bundestag, Testimonies Date: January 14, 2019
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Feb
8
08:30

The world’s response to China’s Belt and Road Initiative

This event will look at the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative as well as the response from the rest of the world.

Speakers: Alicia García-Herrero, Jean-Francois Di Meglio, Theresa Fallon and Uri Dadush Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Policy Contribution

The Belt and Road turns five

Five years after its launch, Michael Baltensperger and Uri Dadush reflect on China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The plan to revive ancient trade routes has the potential to enhance development prospects across the world and in China, but that potential might not be realised because the BRI’s objectives are too broad and ill-defined, and its execution is too often non-transparent, lacking in due diligence and uncoordinated.

By: Michael Baltensperger and Uri Dadush Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 10, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Lose-lose scenario for Europe from ongoing China-US negotiations

Without an expectation of a larger market for European exports in the absence of additional opening up by Chinese authorities, European exporters should not enjoy the ongoing China-US negotiations.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 9, 2019
Read article More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Director’s cut: Wrapping up 2018

With 2018 drawing to a close, and the dawn of 2019 imminent, Bruegel's scholars reflect on the economic policy developments we can expect in the new year – one that brings with it the additional uncertainty of European elections.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Energy & Climate, European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: December 20, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

China’s view of the trade war has changed—and so has its strategy

The truce agreed on by China and the United States at the sidelines of the recent G-20 meeting in Buenos Aires doesn’t really change the picture of the U.S.’s ultimate goal of containing China. The reason is straightforward: The U.S. and China have become strategic competitors and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, which leaves little room for any long-term settlement of disputes.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: December 19, 2018
Load more posts