What is ‘dynamic alignment’ with Europe and will it reverse Brexit?

Why is Labour proposing to sign up to EU laws despite Brexit, and wouldn’t it be better just to fully rejoin? Sean O’Grady looks at what’s in store

On 23 June, Britain will mark (or celebrate, or mourn…) the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum on EU membership. It’s fair to say the 2016 vote didn’t provide the conclusive settlement of the Europe debate that David Cameron had envisaged. Some of the old arguments are now to be raked over yet again as the government prepares legislation to voluntarily adopt some EU single market rules – a policy called “dynamic alignment” by ministers and “Brexit betrayal” by critics.

What is “dynamic alignment”?

It means that in some areas, such as agriculture, Britain would accept EU single market regulations indefinitely and, in effect, as British law. Static alignment would mean accepting some of the single market rules as they exist today, a known corpus of regulations. Dynamic means Britain will abide by changing rules as they emerge from the EU Commission in Brussels. Unlike when Britain was a member of the EU, there will be no formal votes at ministerial level or in the European parliament on these regulations. Britain will be a rule-taker, not a rule-maker

What’s the point of that?

To reduce bureaucracy, remove barriers to trade and boost exports and economic growth. It will help farmers and food producers by harmonising plant and animal standards; rejoining the EU energy trading system may also help with energy bills.

Is this a Brexit betrayal?

Yes and no. “Yes” because Britain would have to accept rules it may not necessarily like, as well as those that are uncontroversial or even popular. It is thus an infringement of parliamentary sovereignty. Arguably, the vote to leave the EU meant leaving the single market in its entirety (though that was not on the ballot paper) and, as Norway and Switzerland demonstrate, it is possible to be in the single market without being a full EU member. Starmer’s policy seems to mimic the Swiss model – a partial and sectoral approach, though more dynamic and thus less onerous than having to periodically renegotiate rule books, as the Swiss used to.

“No” because the UK is voluntarily trading this element of its sovereignty in return for potential economic benefits. Parliament could at any time exercise its sovereign rights and repeal the relevant law.

What about joining the EU customs union?

This is Liberal Democrat policy and popular in parts of the Labour Party, but regarded by the prime minister as a less promising route to resetting relations to Britain’s advantage. The main problem with rejoining the EU customs union is that it would require Britain to adopt EU trade policy – tariffs and rules – as it applies to the rest of the world; thus, the current post-Brexit trade agreements and reciprocal tariff rates with the US, India, the TransPacific Partnership, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and others would have to be scrapped. It would be embarrassing and would annoy the Trump administration, rendering Brexit even more pointless.

What other progress has been made on Britain’s ‘reset with Europe’?

Virtually unnoticed, the EU has determined the UK now meets its standards of “data adequacy”, which allows for mass data transfers between the UK and EU countries and means Britain could regain access to, for example, the fingerprint database of asylum seekers – a useful tool in assessing failed claims in EU states. Data sharing has been extended to 2031.

Any snags?

Not many, but one immediate problem concerns the completion of the UK-US Economic Prosperity Deal. This has stalled on the ambitious technology investment project, and Washington is reportedly insisting on better UK market access for American produce – including chlorinated chicken, hormone-treated beef, GM wheat, additives in processed food and so on. Having these enter the UK market would necessitate more border controls to prevent onward entry to EU markets, and it would probably break EU single market rules. As ever, Britain is being torn between America and Europe.

Is there a democratic mandate for all this?

As far as there can ever be short of another referendum. Parliament will debate the proposed new arrangements, which were fairly clearly signalled in the 2024 Labour manifesto: “There will be no return to the single market, the customs union, or freedom of movement. Instead, Labour will work to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship with the EU, by tearing down unnecessary barriers to trade. We will seek to negotiate a veterinary agreement to prevent unnecessary border checks and help tackle the cost of food; will help our touring artists; and secure a mutual recognition agreement for professional qualifications to help open up markets for UK service exporters.”

So is the reset complete?

Far from it. Outstanding tasks include making membership of the Erasmus scheme more permanent, as well as converting the coalition of the willing and the European arm of Nato into what Emmanuel Macron has called a European Defence Community. However, a full European army remains a controversial idea; British troops being stationed in Ukraine as part of a peace deal is bound to be bitterly opposed in Eurosceptic circles.

Will the UK rejoin the EU?

Not in this parliament. Longer term, it’s always possible; some Labour strategists sense an electoral advantage in capitalising on the unpopularity of Brexit by putting a more radical offer on Europe to voters at the next election. The general picture, accelerated by demographic shifts, is one of regret about Brexit and a pragmatic willingness to work and trade with Europe.

On the other hand, there remains much less enthusiasm for accepting “rule from Brussels” or adopting the euro as the price of rejoining. There must also be some considerable aversion to another traumatic referendum process tearing the nation apart for years on end. That said, it’s not constitutionally essential to hold one; there wasn’t when Britain first joined in 1973, based on a promise in the Conservatives’ winning 1970 general election manifesto – back in the days when the Tories were “the party of Europe”. Would Sir Keir Starmer try to emulate Sir Ted Heath?