Brexiteers will have to accept a close relationship with the EU

It should not surprise us that Brexiteer ministers have descended to the language of the playground. Gavin Williamson, the education secretary, declared yesterday that the reason the United Kingdom was able to authorise the Pfizer vaccine before France, Belgium and the United States was “because we’re a much better country than every single one of them, aren’t we?”

Even allowing for Mr Williamson’s eccentric sense of humour, and even allowing that there is some truth in the claim that our departure from the EU made it easier for our regulator to approve the vaccine independently, this feels like pride coming before a fall. 

The vaccine decision – which was permissible as an emergency measure under EU law (to which we are still subject) but would have been politically difficult if we had still been a member of the bloc – has prompted some undignified crowing from ministers who should know better. 

They should know, specifically, that the vaccine was developed by Germans and Americans and is being manufactured in Belgium. Ministers should know, more to the point, that they will need the cooperation of our European friends in future. Vaccination will be a huge, multinational effort. 

And there is a broader argument to be made, which should temper the likely and imminent hubris of Boris Johnson in claiming to have secured a “fantastic” deal with the EU on trade terms. Those who argue that the best deal would be continued EU membership will accept that any deal that avoids tariffs and quotas on our trade with the EU, and therefore on the transfer of goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, is better than no deal. But they will resist the goading of Brexiteer triumphalists, no doubt including the prime minister, who will urge Remainers to celebrate the second-best outcome. 

The Independent suspects that, if a deal is done, it will be achieved by making concessions that will be disguised by bluster and vainglorious boasting. That is, after all, what Mr Johnson did when he renegotiated Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement, selling the Democratic Unionist Party down the river – or at least down a border in the Irish Sea. 

So while we will of course welcome any deal that avoids the even worse outcome of a no-deal exit from the EU single market, we will point out its defects, and we will try to look ahead to the future. 

Not only will we need to cooperate with our neighbours on vaccines, but our economic future will be bound to theirs. However much the Brexiteers may chirrup about our freedom to negotiate brilliant trade deals with the rising stars of the world, the reality is that our most important economic partner for the foreseeable future will still be the EU. 

Yesterday, Liz Truss, the international trade secretary, proudly announced a continuity trade agreement with North Macedonia. All that does is replicate the relationship we already had with North Macedonia through the EU. And North Macedonia wants to join the EU anyway. As Lord Mandelson, the former EU trade commissioner, pointed out yesterday, the moment of signing an EU trade deal is less important than the continuing story of our relationship with the EU. He was making the argument that the Labour Party ought to focus on the future rather than agonising too much over whether to vote for the deal or to abstain in the next few days, but it applies to the government as well. 

Whichever party is in power in the UK over the next decade will need to adjust the terms of the UK-EU relationship constantly. As the costs of Brexit become apparent, the debate will inevitably turn to how those costs could be reduced, that will probably lead to a long-term debate about the relative statuses of Switzerland and Norway in relation to the EU. 

It should be obvious then to Mr Williamson that, wonderful as Britain is, it is not in a better position than many other countries.