It has been a little while, but I could not resist the temptation to write again about Europe for this website. I understand from the comments that this is usually something many readers very much enjoy.
The reason is that last week the Government did something very sensible that was very well received. In what was otherwise a rather dismal week for the Conservatives, the decision to reach a deal to rejoin Horizon Europe was the right thing to do, and this should be acknowledged.
Not everyone is pleased – the Reform Party types are popping up on GB News and declaring that this is a betrayal of Brexit as is their wont – but the UK’s scientific community is delighted. Even Boris Johnson is supportive, congratulating the Government in his Daily Mail column, although more about him shortly.
Horizon is the EU-led scheme facilitating scientific collaboration. There is shared funding and, as an EU member, the UK traditionally did very well out of how the funding was allocated (in that we were net beneficiaries), but it is not just about the funding. Membership enabled scientists from participating countries to work together on projects to the benefit of all.
As Johnson points out, membership was included in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement that was concluded on Christmas Eve 2020. But when the UK threatened to renege on the Northern Ireland Protocol, the EU withheld membership. When these threats were withdrawn, as the Windsor Framework was concluded, the offer to rejoin Horizon was restored. The last few months have been taken up with haggling over the membership fee, but that has now been resolved, and we are back in.
This is very good news for our scientists, and if science will now advance a little faster it is to society’s benefit as a whole. Maintaining and strengthening our position as a science power is also vital to our economy, a point made by Sam Gyimah in an excellent chapter in the forthcoming book, which I edited, The Case for the Centre Right. Placing science at the heart of the Government’s vision for the future of the country makes a lot of sense, but would have been difficult to do while antagonising almost the entire science community by staying outside Horizon. Rejoining gives Rishi Sunak more credibility to set out an ambitious science agenda.
All very good. But let us turn to more controversial matters – and the UK’s relations with the EU, and what the entire Horizon affair tells us.
According to Johnson, he always wanted to remain part of Horizon, included it within the TCA (which is true) but then, as an act of “pettiness” the EU “temporarily decided to terminate UK membership” before “relenting”.
This should not come as a surprise to anyone, but this is an extraordinarily partial account of what happened. It entirely excludes Johnson’s own role in the costly delay to our membership. It was Johnson who threatened to rip up the Northern Ireland Protocol. The EU’s response was entirely predictable.
As for the EU simply “relenting” on this point, the reality is that its move came in response to the UK agreeing to abide by the terms of the Northern Ireland Protocol. Sunak was right to do so, but he had to face down Johnson who led a rather underwhelming rebellion against it. In other words, had Johnson had his way, we would still be excluded from Horizon. And, the logic of Johnson’s position means that even he accepts that this would be a bad thing.
The principal point of the former Prime Minister’s article, however, is to argue that we should not view Horizon membership as a sign that the direction of travel is towards the UK rejoining the EU. Johnson declares that this is “simply never going to happen”.
His argument is that rejoining the EU will require joining the Euro and that would be politically impossible. Consequently, “there is no going back”.
Whether membership of the Euro would be a requirement to rejoin the EU is a matter for another day, although undeniably a strict stipulation of Euro membership (which has not been how it has worked for Sweden) would make our return less likely. The question should be asked, however, about whether the direction of travel is now towards a closer relationship with the EU or not.
The difficulty for those who favour divergence is that the realities keep getting in the way. Brexit was supposed to open up lots of opportunities to exploit new freedoms but, after nearly three years in which we have been outside the EU, there has been little to show for it.
There have been trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, but these were principally driven by the politics of having something to announce rather than any economic benefit. A deal with India may be imminent, the most tangible consequence of which may be a liberalised visa regime. This may come as a surprise to those who voted for Brexit to reduce immigration (and, yes, plenty did).
The attempts to diverge radically from EU regulations keep running into the same difficulty. Businesses that operate in both the UK and the EU do not want to have to comply with two sets of rules. Whether it is in financial services or manufacturing, the desire to minimise red tape tends towards maintaining alignment, not going it alone. The desire to avoid new Brexit-caused bureaucracy has meant that we continue to put off introducing border checks on goods entering the UK from the EU.
The gravitational pull of the EU – our largest external market – remains strong and, at times, irresistible. On Horizon, the Windsor Framework and the sun-setting of EU laws, the Government has recognised this and acted with pragmatism. It is striking that when the Government has acted in this way, its decisions have been warmly welcomed and the Brexit hardliners left isolated.
This does not mean that on every issue we are going to move closer to the EU. As Peter Foster of the Financial Times has written, there is a ratchet for divergence as EU regulations evolve. Reversing that may require political boldness. Jill Rutter of the Institute for Government has pointed out that the EU may not be willing to let the UK cherry-pick areas of convergence if it does not suit them. Transitional arrangements that have been to our benefit involving derivatives clearing in London and the absence of tariffs on electric vehicles may not be extended.
But even under the Conservatives, the UK’s revealed preference is generally to favour alignment over divergence. In all likelihood, we will have a Labour Government next year, elected on the votes of those who are, at the very least, open to a much closer EU relationship. Last week’s shadow cabinet reshuffle strengthened the position of the Blairites – the faction within Labour most likely to favour a more ambitious EU relationship.
Nothing on this matter will be straightforward or inevitable, and one can overstate the political significance of the Horizon decision (not to mention EU flag waving at the Last Night of the Proms). Labour’s stated EU position remains cautious and would not be transformative. But the political environment has changed and will likely change further. We might not rejoin, but the political momentum is now with those seeking a closer relationship. From a Brexiteer perspective, Johnson is sounding rather complacent.