- The Observer
52 25.08.19 Comment & Analysis
The UK has enjoyed
the privileges of the
single market. Things
are tougher outside it
The blame game is upon
us. Since it is hard to believe that
Boris Johnson could be so naive as to
think that the European Union will
reopen the withdrawal agreement
or ditch the Irish backstop, it seems
likely that he is actively pursuing a
no-deal Brexit. But it is obviously in
the prime minister’s interest to be
seen as the innocent party, especially
in the context of a general election
that now seems highly likely.
And so, in his recent letter to
Donald Tusk , Johnson wrote: “This
government will not put in place
infrastructure, checks or controls
at the border between Northern
Ireland and Ireland.” Few outside
the U K take such a claim seriously. If
the UK were to follow such a course
of action, it would be in breach not
only of its World Trade Organi zation
obligation to treat all its trade
partners equally but of sundry
other international obligations and
agreements. The government’s own
Yellowhammer report , which was
So used are we to a borderless Europe
we’re not ready for the coming shock
leaked last week, concluded that
attempts to avoid a hard border in
Ireland would be “unsustainable”.
Johnson’s claim may be legally
dubious but his political intention
is clear: if a hard border reappears
in Ireland this will be the fault
of an unreasonable E U. This is
an oft-repeated refrain among
Brexite rs and Ireland’s tiny band
of Eurosceptics, anxious to fi nd
a reason to dislike the EU in a
country where the organisation is
overwhelmingly popular.
The argument gets more
traction than it deserves because
of a confusion about borders.
In particular, there seems to be
a common assumption that the
absence of checks on goods crossing
frontiers is the default state of the
world and that the existence of
border controls is a weird aberration.
The assumption is false. As
even a cursory glance at border
arrangements across the globe
reveals, border controls are entirely
normal: it is their absence that is
the aberration. Physical borders
are to be found even along those
frontiers that have been pointed out
by Brexite rs as examples to follow,
most notably those between Norway
and Sweden, Canada and the United
States, and Switzerland and France.
The only region of the world
where you will fi nd sovereign states
coexisting without border checks on
the trade between them is the E U.
There is nothing accidental about
this, since eliminating borders was
the great project of the EU. It did
so by eliminating the reasons why
modern states fi nd it necessary to
inspect goods crossing international
frontiers: in particular, different
tariffs on imports from the rest ofthe world ; and different rules on
what can be legally bought and sold .
The fi rst reason for border
controls was eliminated by the
simple expedient of setting up a
customs union, which dates back to
the foundation of the old EEC and
involves all member states having
a common trade policy vis-a-vis
third countries. And the second was
eliminated by ensuring that the
rules governing what can be legally
bought and sold are the same across
the EU: this is the single market,
which as you will recall was a largely
British invention. When it came into
effect in 1993 , border controls on
trade vanished across Europe.
The combination of the customs
union and single market remains
to this day the only way that border
controls on trade between sovereign
states have been eliminated. It was
an astonishing political achievement.
It has been so successful that many
Europeans now take a borderless
Europe for granted and fi nd it
hard to imagine a world in which
lorries crossing frontiers face time-
consuming and expensive delays.Those taking it for granted
include, it would appear, many
Brexite rs. And so they argue that the
UK should be able to do whatever
it wants on trade and regulation
without this having implications
for borders; that the UK will never
introduce a border with Ireland; that
if UK decisions lead to borders, this
will be because the EU “chooses”
to “reintroduce” them; that the EU,
not the UK, will be to blame.Such claims might be
valid if we lived in a world where
the absence of border controls was
the normal state of affairs. Since we
don’t live in such a world, they are a
logical nonsense and will remain so
until someone fi nds an alternative
way of eliminating border
controls on trade while preventing
smuggling. The latter consideration
is particularly important given that
we also live in a world in which
legitimate traders and governments
will not accept losing business and
tax revenue as a result of the illegal
activities of organised criminals. To
date, there is no indication that such
an alternative method exists.
If, therefore, a country chooses
to abandon the customs union and
single market arrangements that
allowed borders to be eliminated
in the fi rst place, then border
controls will return as an automatic
consequence of that country’s
choices. Its choices and no one else’s- it really is as simple as that.
However, that will not stop many
in the UK claiming that the backstop,
which de facto keeps Northern
Ireland in the customs union and
single market for goods, is not
required to avoid a hard border in
Ireland; that in a no-deal scenario
you wouldn’t need one anyway;
that if there are checks on UK
goods at Calais this will constitute
“punishment” by the EU ; and so
forth. While many making such
claims are just being dishonest,
there are probably others who are
genuinely confused. And one reason
for that is that they’ve so internalised
the EU’s greatest success that they
assume it is the natural state of
affairs.
Which is wrong and also a
bit ironic.
Kevin O’Rourke is professor of
economic history at Oxford and the
author of A Short History of BrexitThe only region
of the world
where sovereign
states coexist
without border
checks is the EU
Eliminating borders was the
great project of the EU, but you
have to be in it to benefi t.
Laszlo Balogh/Reuters Hidden gems from
the world of research
and academiaTh e world of work isn’t one of
gender equality. You may have
noticed. On average, women
earn 18% less than men. Partly
that’s because four in 10 of them
work part time compared with
one in 10 for men, but there’s still
a 9% pay gap even just looking
at full-time workers.
Alongside any (illegal) pay
discrimination, much of the
gap is driven by women being
underrepresented in higher-
paying occupations. Th is isn’t
about education – slightly
more than half of the working-
age population with a master’s
degree are women but just
32% of corporate managers
and 21% of science and tech
professionals.
And women are even more
underrepresented at the very
top. In 2015, men accounted for
95% of top fi rms’ CEOs in the
Forbes 500. Th e book Nudge:
Improving Decisions About
Health, Wealth and Happiness
posited that this is because
women are much less likely to
take risks and apply for jobs
they don’t feel fully qualifi ed for,
but new research says perhaps
they actually face diff erent risks.
Examining what happens
to women in Sweden when
they enter top jobs, it fi nds
they pay a high price for career
success: a top job in politics or
business leads to a higher risk of
divorce for women. It makes no
diff erence for men.
Th e authors share a radical
solution from a Swedish female
politician for women wanting
to combine career success
with marriage: “Find the right
husband.” I can’t help feeling
that may be missing the point.Read more from Torsten
Bell’s Top of the Charts at
resolutionfoundation.orgInsights
Torsten Bell
Women in top jobs face higher
risk of divorce, research fi nds.Kevin
O’Rourke