Owen Polley: A UK 'reset' with the European Union is very unlikely to fix the huge problem of the Irish Sea border

Last week, as if to illustrate my point, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, told a business school in London that the UK should accept most of the EU’s single market rules. “There are areas (of the economy) in which regulatory autonomy may be necessary,” she said, “But that should be the exception, not the norm.”

For most of the past decade, it was unthinkable that a senior member of the government would make a speech like this.

The slogan ‘Brexit means Brexit’ never amounted to much, but it did imply that there could be no going back.

The idea that Britain should substantially reintegrate with the single market was viewed as an unpopular position that could be portrayed as anti-democratic.

Now, the government is in negotiations with Brussels over a ‘reset’ deal that it claims will reduce costs for businesses and give young people new opportunities to work or study abroad.

The most enthusiastic proponents of Brexit naturally think this is a terrible mistake. The shadow business secretary, Andrew Griffiths, compared it to “Canada becoming a rule taker of the US congress”, while Reform UK’s leader, Nigel Farage, said it was “not in our national interest to… tie ourselves to rules that make us uncompetitive.

From the Northern Ireland viewpoint, it is harder to be indignant.

After all, we were effectively left behind in the single market while the rest of the country left the EU. The result was a sea border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which created obstacles to trade and prevented the Westminster parliament from legislating on a range of important policy issues here.

It would be faintly absurd to defend the purity of Brexit or get angry about its betrayal, when we were never properly included in it in the first place. Even so, it would also be naive to assume that Labour’s ‘reset’ will remove the sea border or even ease its effects significantly.

The government hopes to negotiate an agrifood (or SPS) agreement with the EU, which will effectively involve accepting Brussels’ rules on food and agriculture.

In a press release, earlier this month, ministers claimed this would mean, “traders will no longer need regulatory certificates, checks or paperwork,” to move “most agri-food goods” from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. They urged businesses to “get ready” for an improved situation.

The Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) added a quote from its president, William Irvine, who said the deal could resolve “many Windsor Framework issues.”

If it does make life easier for food producers, that would be good news.

However, as the TUV leader, Jim Allister, wrote in a recent policy paper, the government looks set to pass legislation and re-align with the EU before any agreement is reached.

This is an ominous sign.

It seems that Keir Starmer’s plan is to conform with Brussels’ demands, then rely on its good faith to remove barriers for trade. This is despite the fact that the whole history of the sea border warns against assuming the EU will be reasonable or proportionate in its attitude to Northern Ireland.

The agrifood industry, in any case, is just one part of our economy affected by the Windsor Framework. In fact, while Brussels previously claimed it was the biggest threat to its market, it eventually effectively agreed to dual-regulation in Northern Ireland for many food products, albeit with onerous stipulations, including ‘not for EU’ labels.

Other goods, which it previously regarded as less of a problem, did not benefit from any similar arrangements.

The chancellor’s speech, though, suggested that most industries, not just agriculture, should accept single market rules. The implication is that the government could align with the EU bit by bit, possibly through ministers using statutory instruments that would avoid controversial votes in parliament.

This approach could perhaps prevent some British products from becoming unavailable in Northern Ireland. However, it is very unlikely to persuade Brussels to drop its insistence on checks and paperwork for goods crossing the Irish Sea.

In fact, it could amount to the ‘worst of all worlds’, where we voluntarily accept laws that we did not make and cannot change, while the EU insists that it must still protect its market and refuses to lower trade barriers.

In Mr Allister’s view, some of the flaws in the government’s strategy may be deliberate rather than being due to naivety. In other words, ministers are eager to implement the Windsor Framework and defend it precisely because it creates problems that can then be used to justify further integration with the EU. At some point, the North Antrim MP wrote, Labour “would love to rejoin”.

That may be the case and unionists will disagree about whether that prospect is desirable, particularly given Northern Ireland’s experience in the ten years since the Brexit vote. The government’s position, for now, is that the UK will not be rejoining the single market or customs union.

It is clear, though, that while the ‘reset’ plan could potentially make things easier for some businesses, it is very unlikely to provide solutions to the sea border. This government is too weak, and too in thrall to the EU, to demand changes that would make a real and lasting difference.