Here’s what Theresa May needs
to do to win over sceptical Brexiteers
3rd October
2018
Dominic
Raab has come out with a bold and unequivocal statement that EU intransigence
(or an over-playing of its hand) may force the UK into adopting some sort of
no-deal exit from the EU. He also has reiterated that no deal is not to be
feared. This is to be welcomed.
The
current impasse around the Chequers White Paper deserves a similar laser-like
approach in order both to provide the Prime Minister with a route to a
satisfactory Brexit and also to offer the country the possibility of achieving
an outcome approaching that it which it voted for.
It
is quite remarkable that at present the lack of clarity around Chequers
provides much of the ammunition for its critics, of whom I am one, and yet if
this were to be the basis of a solution to the question of Brexit, much of the
material for that solution may lie within the proposal. It may simply be that
the cast-iron and explicit parameters of Chequers have remained hidden for the
purposes of negotiation. If this is so, now is the moment to unveil its true
meaning. There will be no other opportunity like this and No. 10 should not
over play its hand domestically, lest it be fatal to both the PM and to Brexit.
Of
course, this entirely presupposes that the Prime Minister actually believes in
the merits of Brexit and wishes sincerely to deliver it; such is the lack of
transparent resolve, even this is not clear.
One
of the unspoken and unspeakable drivers of the Government’s current position is
the Irish border question. In essence, we have the bizarre situation that fear
of the IRA is in danger of shackling the UK forever to the EU. What Mrs
Thatcher would have made of this, one can only speculate on. This is even more
perverse, given the facts of the border question.
It
is no use pretending that there will not be a border after Brexit – but it need
not be visible. In fact, there is a border operating now for such things as
currency, excise, tax etc. There is even a border between Great Britain and the
island of Ireland for certain animal health issues. However, just as these are
invisible, so can be the border for people and for products.
For people, as long as
the Republic and the UK are not in the Schengen Zone and therefore all
passports are checked on entry to the British Isles, there is no need for a people
border at all on the island of Ireland.
For products, any
checks can be carried out at the point of destination, provided electronic
paperwork is issued at the point of dispatch. Across the world only 2% of goods
are checked at borders, even between countries that have no trade arrangements.
The border would be invisible.
This surely must be a
more pragmatic alternative to the complex customs arrangements of
Chequers.
What makes this
shibboleth even more absurd is that the Prime Minister’s own fall-back
position, a no-deal Brexit, would lead to a so-called hard border, albeit this
would be invisible in practice. So, why is it OK for one solution but not the
other?
In respect of the rest
of Chequers, I would prescribe a clear, unequivocal and cast-iron declaration
in order to stand any chance of winning over rightly sceptical Brexiteers – and
soon.
Mrs May must first
make it clear that she would now vote for Brexit and is embracing the
opportunities it affords.
She must also
guarantee that the common rule book would not extend beyond product standards
to other areas of regulation – e.g. services, environment, employment law,
social policy etc. – and that there will be no commitment to participation in a
European military structure.
I would also have said
that she must articulate a clear and bold declaration on migration, removing
discrimination in favour of the EU and setting out a framework for choosing who
comes to Britain, including limitation of migrants into low skill jobs – but
she and the Home Secretary appear to have done this yesterday.
Meanwhile the current
Chancellor and the Treasury must set out a positive vision for a post-Brexit
Britain or the Chancellor should be replaced by one who will. There should be a
clear declaration of intent to make the very best of the Brexit opportunities,
a declaration of what the post-Brexit economy would look like, such as the
unilateral removal of tariffs to reduce the cost of living, a business-friendly
tax environment for entrepreneurs (rather than just multinationals),
infrastructure investment, housing investment and using the Brexit dividend to
boost the economy and growth.
There must be a
declared intent to pursue trade deals around the world immediately upon
Brexit. A cast-iron guarantee on the removal of the ECJ from our affairs
would need to be part of any deal. And it would require the proper ownership by
the UK of fishing and the reform of CAP.
This would also then
raise the question as to why an implementation period would be necessary,
especially given the the PM’s fall-back, a no-deal exit, would be implemented
immediately, which is after all what people want.
All of this would
still leave many entrepreneurs and business owners dissatisfied that those who
operate domestically or only export to the rest of the world (the vast majority
of businesses) would be tied to a rule book of product standards.
If all of this were
achieved and such an imperfect Brexit was felt to be worth it, what would be
the likelihood of the EU accepting this à la carte approach to Britain’s relationship?
I dare say that only if these things were done would it stand any chance
of being accepted by Parliament.
All in all, a no-deal
option is looking more and more attractive. It is certainly something not to be
feared and while it might be inconvenient to certain sectors of the economy for
a short while, it would provide a world of opportunity.
Furthermore, in the
event, no-deal may only mean no trade deal, as much of the rest has already
been agreed. It would mean we have truly departed the EU, have complete freedom
and a trade arrangement could then be negotiated from a position of strength.
John Longworth was formerly Director
General of the British Chambers of Commerce and Chairman of the Vote Leave
Business Council and is now Co-Chairman of Leave Means Leave. He is also on the
Advisory Board of Economists for Free Trade and the IEA.
LEAVE MEANS LEAVE
83 Victoria Street, London,SW1H 0HW
General Enquiries: 0203 585 4085
Media Enquiries: 07888667893
