Friday, 15 February 2019

We don't need *a* withdrawal agreement

The whole notion of having a single, all-encompassing EU Withdrawal Agreement was a nonsense from the start, even assuming a lot of goodwill and willingness to compromise on both sides. It's Remainer propaganda to make it all seem more complicated than it really is (for the experts concerned).

The sensible thing to do is work on a case-by-case basis and have lots of little agreements, just as international relations are governed in the real world.

The starting position is leave everything running exactly as it is, making a few tweaks where necessary. Take EHIC cards, for example, that is an agreement between members of EU, EEA and Switzerland, we just change that to read "members of EU, EEA, Switzerland and the UK", and so on.

To give a few examples;

1. The airports, airlines, aviation authorities do their arrangements, which is lots of supra-national stuff, not really an EU thing.

2. The police and justice departments are responsible for extradition and deportation agreements, co-operation and information sharing. We can chuck the European Arrest Warrant in the shredder and revert to normal extradition rules.

3. Home Office agrees with corresponding department in each other country (or groups thereof) what the rules on emigration, immigration and right to reside are.

I have no idea how long this list would be (very long), but that doesn't matter, the people affected by cross-border and supra-national agreements know who they are and can get in touch with their counter-parties in other countries. Once they dig down, they'll find that most of this was never an EU-competence and so is barely affected by Brexit.

They can all work in parallel at the same time, they are the experts in their own area and know what needs to be done.

The NHS/BMA knows about mutual recognition of qualifications of doctors and nurses, but they have no idea about world-wide rules on car safety standards, that doesn't matter. NHS/BMA do their bit, and the car manufacturers and transport ministries do their bit.

There is no need for politicians - who have no expertise in anything - to get involved, except in their capacity as minister responsible for a particular department.

Here endeth.

8 comments:

PJH said...

"...an EU-competence..."

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Matt said...

@PJH

More likely, get some of what Mark is taking :-)

Lola said...

Wot I have been saying all along. The WA is a bureaucrats stipends protection scheme.

Mark Wadsworth said...

PIH "EU competence" means "things for which the EU can make rules", it doesn't mean they're actually competent.

L, agreed.

Physiocrat said...

You are wrong about politicians. They possess considerable expertise in screwing things up, especially as most of them don't know anything about anything, which seems to be an attribute that attracts them to politics in the first place.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Ph, depressing but true.

Dinero said...

In June 2017 the government announced the policy of wanting a transition period and that requires agreement from The EU. It seems that it was at that point that a withdrawal agreement became necessary considering that context.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Din, fair enough, we can't rewrite history, but as no WA has yet been agreed, UK govt could say "OK, we need an agreement, apart from this long list of topics which will be agreed between experts/insiders on a case-by-case basis" which means the actual WA itself will be much more focussed.